|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Port
Phillip Conservation Council Inc. A0020093K Victoria
ABN 46 291 176 191 Founded in 1970
Tel. 0429176725 |
||||
|
Why the 2006 ACF Annual General Meeting should not
have passed Motions 2, 4 & 10 to alter the Australian Conservation
Foundation's Constitution Please click on a blue hyperlink for more
information. |
||||
|
* |
MOTION 1 was carried ‘Proxy Voting at General Meetings’ ACF’s Constitution has long provided for postal ballots, and not
proxy voting. ACT law now allows a minimum of 5 proxies per member. An ACF
General Meeting has used that to allow unlimited proxy voting. That can, and
should, be overridden by a new Rule to prohibit proxies and confirm postal
ballots. |
* |
Vote NO
to MOTION
2 ‘Governance Arrangements’ Transfer of Governing Authority - including
the Policy-making Power - from the Council (directly elected by ACF
Members) to a Board (to be appointed by the Council) |
|
* |
Vote NO to MOTION 4 ‘Regulatory Compliance’ The existing rule requiring a postal ballot before any
alteration of the Constitution is being unjustifiably ignored and bypassed, with
the intention to remove it. |
* |
Vote NO
to MOTION
10 ‘Confirmation of Constitution’ This
catch-all motion would remove the directly-elected Council’s present
Governing Authority, and replace the requirement for secret postal ballots of
ACF members for Constitutional alterations with a loose non-secret proxy
vote. |
|
* |
Is the ACF Constitution valid or not? If it is not valid, on what basis are the proposed changes being
made? |
* |
Main issues in these attempts to
alter the ACF Constitution Contact details for the ACF councillors
opposing the 4 motions |
|
|
|||
|
The Special General Meeting of ACF held on 18th
August 2006 in Sydney, which was attended by 65 of the
ACF’s approximately 11,000 members (less than 0.6%),
employed for the first time in ACF’s history, the device of proxy voting to
alter the ACF Constitution. The Constitution that was being altered
specifically stipulated that such alterations required a postal ballot of
members, and made no provision for proxy voting, which was only available
under current ACT law because the ACF Constitution did not specifically
prohibit such voting. All such constitutional postal ballots previously
conducted resulted in the votes of some 1,000 or more ACF members deciding
the matter. This time, because of the proxy approach, the
total vote amounted to 310 votes, that is 65 votes cast by those present,
with the remaining 245 votes being proxy votes held by those present, or
other proxy holders appointed by proxy donors, but unknown to those that had
delegated (see third dot point below) their power of appointment to
get around the statutory limitation of proxy votes to a maximum of five per
proxy holder. The carrying of the single Motion No. 1 has resulted in that
statutory limitation now being removed. Many ACF
members, who have participated in ACF's postal ballots, but have never been
presented with a proxy form from ACF before, might not at first sight have
recognized the important differences between the form they received that was
labelled "Your vote" and a direct vote cast at a postal ballot in
the manner prescribed for and customary in ACF
postal ballots for the last 30 years. Australian parliamentary and municipal
polls have long had a postal voting option, but the additional option of
proxy voting available at such polls in the United Kingdom
(this link is quite revealing about UK voters' preferences between postal
voting and proxy voting, as they, unlike ACF members, are allowed to choose
which form they want), and Canada, has fortunately never happened in
Australia. The differences are, however, quite significant and ingenious, for
the specific rules that ACF has concocted for these 2006 Special General
Meetings include:
Port
Phillip Conservation Council Inc, a longstanding Member Body of the
Australian Conservation Foundation supported the stand against the above four
motions taken by ACF councillors, Geoff Mosley, David Risstrom
and Carol Williams. Those ACF councillors support the Rule in the
present ACF Constitution that, as a result of past referendums of members,
requires that the Constitution must not be altered without approval by
members at a referendum. Members approved that. Unfortunately, since ACF was
founded in the 1960s the ACT law that it is
incorporated under has changed so that it now states that alterations to the
Constitution only take effect if passed at a General Meeting of
members. The present
ACF Governance Committee and ACF President have seized on that fact, which
nobody doubts or challenges, to now claim that there is no need to include, as
a necessary preliminary step, the submission of proposed alterations to ACF
members for approval before finally having them made legally binding by the
prescribed General Meeting method. They have persuaded the ACF Council to
agree to their proposal that major alterations should be made to the ACF
Constitution by ignoring and bypassing the existing written, agreed
Constitution. The way forward is to make it clear to ACF that it should hold
a proper postal ballot, as already prescribed by membership vote, and only
proceed to implement the proposed alterations to the Constitution if they are
approved at such a ballot by the special majority of 60% prescribed in the
existing Constitution. |
|||
|
The
proposed alterations include remodelling the Executive Committee, which is at
present constitutionally subservient to the Council, to become the Board, which
would not be directly elected by the ACF members, but would be elected by the
Council, and would become the new governing body of ACF, instead of the
Council, which would still be elected directly by the members of ACF,
but would essentially have only an advisory and consultative role. The YES
case claims that this restructuring is necessary because the 35-member
Council is too large, and cannot meet often enough to govern the Foundation,
but that is an unsound argument as the existing Constitution allows, and
always has allowed, the Council to delegate matters, as it always has, and
obviously must. The proposed removal of the Council's ultimate power means
that it would no longer be able to withdraw a delegated power, as at present,
if it considered that the matter involved was so crucial that it demanded a
vote by the directly-elected representatives of the ACF members. |
|||
|
This motion is presented as a proposal to alter the ACF
Constitution to make its provision for alteration read much the same as the
provisions in the ACT Associations Incorporation
Act 1991, where it is stated that it is necessary, for an
alteration to the Constitution of an association incorporated under that Act,
which ACF is, to become effective, for the proposed alteration to be the
subject of a Special Resolution carried at a General Meeting. In reality the
real motive for the motion is the undemocratic intention to delete the
present provision for a postal ballot, which is being improperly ignored in
the current process. |
|||
|
VOTE NO TO MOTION 10 The
Australian Conservation Foundation has held democratic participation of its members
to be an important part of its conservation efforts in Legislative
changes in the Furthermore,
replacing the Executive with a Board, and allowing the Council to nominate
non-elected members to the Board, has the potential to offer power to those
unelected in a way not intended by the members. Although only ACF members
would serve as Board members, the potential for members to challenge the
mandate of unelected Board members is ripe for unwelcome conflict. We believe
that if these important democratic traditions are to be abandoned, the
rationale and mechanisms for their replacement should be set out for members
to understand. The members need to know, if they are to vote for a change,
how their grass roots participation will continue to be guaranteed. The
continued good work of the ACF should not be dependent on good people of
goodwill guiding it to maintain its course. The
constitution of an organisation capable of continuing the good work ACF has
done to date should only be changed if it is both essential, and a demonstrable
improvement. After considering whether these criteria require us to change
our constitution in the way proposed, we believe the answer is NO. |
|||
|
MAIN
ISSUE 1 – NEED TO RETAIN MEMBERSHIP POSTAL BALLOTS AS PREREQUISITE ACF Members voted for Postal Ballot model: ACF remains an influential Australian body because its
members have deliberately created it so all members, wherever they live on General Meetings are no substitute for Postal Ballots: ACF’s Constitution, approved by Postal Ballot, gives
no right to proxy voting at General Meetings, which are inherently
unrepresentative of the national membership, and proxy voting is far too open
to abuse. Now, however, ACT law allows up to five proxy votes per member
present at a General Meeting, unless the organization’s rules explicitly
prevent that. Motion seeks Unlimited Proxy Voting: Members voting at ACF referendums
clearly prefer Postal Ballots, but the motion for a Special Resolution 1
would now circumvent that expressed wish by:
Rejigging ACF in August to Triumph in September: Those planning to dismantle ACF’s
Postal Ballot system might be afraid that the default provisions of ACT law
limiting proxies could limit generation of enough proxies for the 75%
majority vote for the sweeping and complex motions in September. The motion
for a Special Resolution 1 is being rushed for an August General
Meeting, before the remaining nine motions for September’s General
Meeting, to reverse ACF’s long practice of keeping its Australia-wide
membership in control. Proposed Arbitrary Restriction on Length of Statements: The rule in the
existing ACF Constitution, which members have endorsed by Postal Ballot,
states that written statements circulated to all members in regard to
proposed constitutional alterations should not exceed a reasonable length.
That is binding on both proponents and opponents of the change, and has led
to precedent, judgement, and negotiation over the length allowing statements
to vary according to circumstances and issues. A rigid limit, particularly
one as restrictive as the 300 words limit applying to the summary statement,
encourages the packaging of motions into one complex, intertwined “take-it or
leave-it” package, which cannot be effectively opposed in just 300 words. No ACT Law against requiring a Postal Ballot before General
Meetings to finalize change:
Members
required that Postal Ballot protection for changes to the ACF Constitution,
but the law in the ACT,
where ACF is incorporated, now imposes a further requirement
that changes to rules must be made by a “special resolution” at a General
Meeting, which requires a 75% majority vote for success. All ACF councillors
recognize that the ACT law must be complied with, whether its relevant
provisions are restated in the ACF Constitution or not. What is being argued
- strenuously - is that there is absolutely no requirement in that ACT law
for the existing provision for a Postal Ballot of members to be swept away,
and not remain as a proper preliminary step in deciding whether or not each
proposed Constitution alteration should proceed to the legal necessity of a
General Meeting. Therefore the so-called “Regulatory Compliance” motion is a
smokescreen for an unwillingness to maintain the present member-approved
democratic safety check on proposed changes to the very basis of the
Foundation - its Constitution. Different Motion Needed: To ensure maintenance of that reasonable, just, and
democratic step of putting all members on the same footing when it comes to
vetting constitutional proposals ACF should, instead of the motion for a Special
Resolution 1, be submitting a motion for a Special Resolution to ensure
that the Constitution continues to include a Postal Ballot as a first step
before the statutory General Meeting, and not be seizing on this windfall
opportunity to unnecessarily obliterate that democratic protection. That better
motion, retaining Postal Ballots, at least as a prerequisite for
constitutional change, is needed. MAIN
ISSUE 2 – NEED TO REJECT PROPOSALS TO REDUCE MEMBERSHIP CONTROL Proposed Restriction on Re-election of Proven Councillors: The motion for a Special
Resolution 2 at the Special General Meeting to be held in Melbourne in
September 2006 asks members at a once-off General Meeting to remove the present
right of voters at future ACF Council elections to re-elect proven
councillors that those voters prefer above other contenders to represent them
on the Council. Such a restrictive provision would be a serious attack on the
rights and powers of members as voters. Rather than have a single debate at a
Special General Meeting close off indefinitely, by a blanket ban, the
opportunity for experienced councillors that continue to be well-supported
electorally to be assessed by voters at each successive Council election, and
to maximize choice for voters, it is surely far better to let all those
voting decide the issue in each separate election year, and in each separate
electorate. ACF does
not have a winner-take-all electoral system where all that happens is that
either all councillors elected are from the “old guard”, or all councillors
elected are newcomers. Instead it has long had a proportional representation
system, which gives a mixture of new councillors and experienced councillors
in accordance with the mixture of voters’ attitudes on that aspect of
candidature, taken into account with other aspects judged to be significant
by the voters. The
proposal is a modified version of the term limit restriction, primarily a Proposed Reduction of Council Meetings to 2 per Year: The motion for a Special
Resolution 2 asks members to further weaken ACF members’ influence by
reducing the number of Council meetings that can be held annually. This
reduction in the involvement of members’ directly-elected representatives in
ACF’s operation is utterly consistent with the general purpose and motivation
of the undemocratic changes that are being attempted by the unnecessary
disregard of ACF’s established Postal Ballot system for gaining membership
approval of constitutional changes. The route
for change being attempted might be the only way in which such
anti-democratic measures could be instituted, as the fair and member-mandated
approach of a Postal Ballot would almost certainly see such the membership
reject such moves. Despite pretences that the Council that members would
still elect has a significant purpose, other than being a US-style Electoral
College to elect the members of the all-powerful “Board”, it would seem that
the proposed reduction to two Council meetings per year reveals the minor
“Mickey Mouse” role being envisaged for ACF Council. MAIN
ISSUE 3 – NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF ACF The
proposed constitutional changes in the motions for Special Resolutions 1,
2, 4 and 10 represent the biggest assault on ACF’s democratic system in
its history. If you believe in democracy you will decisively reject these
proposals by voting ‘NO’. ACF’s
present system is based on the fundamental principle that in a democratic
organization the governing body, which determines policy and has the final
say on crucial matters, should be directly elected by its members. Members
can submit motions to Council at meetings or through their Councillor
representatives – then Council decides, and its decisions now bind the
officers, staff, and all other committees. This approach, which has served us
well for over thirty years, is even more relevant to the tough challenges of
the future, which will not be met without direct community involvement. There are
always some people around who will try to grab power. A large majority at a
Postal Ballot of members in 1991 rejected an earlier move to entrench more
powers with the Executive Committee. The
Foundation’s current system of government is the one most suited for the
continental-sized challenges confronting it. Arguments that change is
necessary because ACF is bigger are specious. ACF has more money now, but the
secretariat is only marginally bigger, and is certainly no more active or
professional. The democratic solution lies in electing Councillors prepared
to engage the community, and not in making ACF more authoritarian,
centralised, elitist and bureaucratic. Closely
examine the proposals and the methods of bringing them about, and you will
see many such tendencies including:
Rule 6 of
the ACF Constitution reads, “Governing Authority of the Foundation. The
governing authority of the Foundation shall be the Council elected pursuant
to these rules.” ACF members have long understood that ACF’s policies and
performance are likely to be more consistent with the views of members if
such a directly-elected Council holds that authority. They do not want it
weakened by a pretence that inevitably localized and
brief General Meetings should erode either the Council’s powers, or the
ultimate power over the ACF Constitution of all ACF members at Australia-wide
Postal Ballots, which has been the key means of shaping the ACF as we now
know it, and keeping it free from undue manipulation. * * * * * * * |
|||
|
PART IX CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 53. Procedures for Constitutional Amendment 53.1 A
motion to amend the Constitution may be submitted at any time by the Council
or the Executive or by request in writing addressed to the Secretary by at
least one hundred members. 53.2 In the
case of a motion submitted by the Council or the Executive pursuant to Rule
53.1, the majority of those members of the Council or the Executive that
voted against submitting the motion, and the Council or Executive, may
require the Secretary to distribute with each ballot paper, a statement
prepared by the Council, the Executive or the majority of the Council or
Executive members who voted against submitting the motion, as the case may
be. 53.3 In the case of a motion submitted under Rule 53.1
by at least 100 members, the Council must promptly consider the motion and
any statements prepared for distribution with it, before the relevant ballot
paper is posted, and must resolve to approve, disapprove or abstain from
comments on the motion and statements. The Secretary must distribute with
each ballot paper a statement prepared by the members submitting the motion
and statements prepared by: (a)
the Council; and, (b)
a majority of those councillors, if any, who voted to
disapprove of it if the Council fails to disapprove of the motion. 53.4 Any
statements prepared pursuant to Rule 53 must be of a reasonable length. 53.5 The
Secretary must post notice of a motion pursuant to Rule 53.1 at least 21 days
before the date fixed by the Council for the last day of posting of the
postal ballot. The Council must fix the last day for the posting of the
ballot papers and the postal ballot must close at 4pm on the 28th day after
the day so fixed. 54. Amendment of the Constitution This
Constitution can only be amended by a resolution carried by a three-fifths
majority of members voting in a postal ballot. If the Council considers that
two or more motions submitted should be regarded as alternatives to each
other, the motions must, together with the alternative that there be no
amendment of the rule or rules in question, be put as options to be voted
upon using the preferential voting system prescribed in this Constitution for
the filling of single vacancies, except that a three-fifths majority rather
than an absolute majority is required. If one of the alternative motions
receives the requisite majority of votes by first preferences or after
distribution of preferences, it must be regarded as having been carried and
as being a resolution by which the Constitution is amended. |
|||
|
Fundamental Flaw in the
ACF Manoeuvres that are now Underway
The ACF
Constitution is either valid, or it is not valid. If the ACF Constitution is
valid, its requirement that it cannot be altered without approval of the alteration
at a postal ballot of members is therefore valid and must be observed as
prescribed before any alteration can properly be made by the Foundation. If
the Constitution is not valid, how can the ACF Council elected in accordance
with its provisions be valid, or make valid decisions such as instigating the
purported alterations to the Constitution,? On what basis can a General
Meeting exercise its supposed powers, as the existence and operation of that
forum surely depends on the terms of the Constitution? |
|||
|
* * * * *
* * * * * |
|||
|
Victorian ACF Councillor,
Dr Geoff Mosley, can be contacted at 03 9718 2998 or by email |
|||
|
|
|||
|
This page is dated
23rd August 2006. |
|||