Name?

For Tasmanian members of the AEVA
Forum rules
All may view this forum, only AEVA Members may post here.
karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Fri, 12 Jun 2015, 14:43

Hi Guys in Tassie,

Congratulations on starting up a branch of AEVA - it’s about time!
:-)


As you can see, every one of branches of the organisation you wish to join is named after the city it is located in: Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney.

What will the name of the new branch in Taswegia be, Hobart or Launceston?

User avatar
EV2Go
Senior Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: Wed, 16 Jul 2008, 00:21
Real Name: Paul
Location: Brisbane 1963

Name?

Post by EV2Go » Fri, 12 Jun 2015, 16:10

Do you envisage there ever being more than one Tasmanian branch? If not then Tasmanian branch would be the logical choice.

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Fri, 12 Jun 2015, 20:17

Currently, each state and one territory (apart from Tasmania, of course) has exactly one AEVA branch, with their names being the name of the city they are located in.

This implied naming policy allows for more than one branch in any state or territory.


User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

Name?

Post by 4Springs » Sat, 13 Jun 2015, 02:06

We've had quite a bit of discussion on this topic at meetings and via emails.
It was roundly agreed by meeting participants that 'Hobart' would not be inclusive enough in a Tasmanian environment. We are a parochial lot, and naming it such might serve as a deterrent for some. Our club also hopes to lobby and advise, and we think that we will have more credibility as a branch that is seen to represent the entire state. That is one reason why we decided to join the national organisation - "AEVA Tasmanian Branch" sounds more official than "Hobart Electric Car Club".

It does seem unlikely at this stage that we would ever need another club in the state - this does not seem to be happening in states with many times our population. But I don't see that the name would stop this happening anyway - we can always rename in the future if we want to, or have one Tasmanian body and multiple regional clubs. This latter option is the way that many organisations work, from Rural Youth to the Cavy Club!

As I said, there has been some discussion about this, and the national executive has just had a vote on the subject. They have voted to go with our wishes and allow us to name it the Tasmanian branch. So we are all official-like!

User avatar
Chuq
Groupie
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun, 11 Jan 2015, 04:24
Real Name: Charles
Location: Hobart, Tas
Contact:

Name?

Post by Chuq » Sat, 13 Jun 2015, 02:37

Pretty much what 4Springs says - there are a few exceptions, but generally organisations in Tasmania are named as such, and not the individual city. Speaking for myself as a Launceston-born Hobart resident, I try to be as inclusive as possible :)

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Sun, 14 Jun 2015, 07:11

Thanks for the response 4springs.

I must say that I am troubled by your reasoning.

1/ You say that naming the branch Hobart would not be inclusive, yet that Tasmanians are parochial. From this you then conclude that you should have a branch named the Tasmanian branch located only in Hobart. How is that being inclusive? Certainly, it seems to evidence your claim at parochialism. In order to justify naming it the Tasmanian branch, shouldn't the meetings be spread across the state, and not in one city only? To have the meetings only in Hobart would not justify calling the branch the Tasmanian branch.

2/ You say that you want to act as an effective lobby group, and that you think that you would have no credibility as the Hobart branch of AEVA. How do you think that reflects on the Adelaide, the Brisbane, the Canberra, the Melbourne, the Perth or the Sydney branches? Do you think they lack credibility? What tends to happen with AEVA is that the members represent themselves as members of AEVA, so, in fact are working even higher than the state level. Do you agree that that would give more credibility?

3/ You say that you don't think you would ever need another club in the state. (I think you misunderstand things: in fact, AEVA's branches are all in the same 'club' - association, and all it takes is for 5 people to get together to start up a branch, so there is a potential for there to be lots of branches). The point about branches is that they are situated where people get together, and are named after that place, so I really do think that you misunderstand things: branches are not separate clubs, but places where people in the same 'club' can meet. On that basis, there is no need to grab hold of the biggest name you can for fear that somebody else will.

There is a unique situation in Tassie where the population is divided into two similarly-sized population areas, and separated by 200 km of road. I put it to you that situating branch meetings in Hobart is a disincentive for people in the north of the state, and practically impossible if they want to go to them in their EVs (unless they have Teslas, of course).

If anything, I would think that Tasmania would be most suited to having at least two branches, one in Hobart, and one or more in the north.

Coming back to meetings, it seems to me that they are the most important things about AEVA. Having branches doesn't make sense without people meeting face-to-face, chatting, getting to know each other, sharing in ideas and thoughts, sharing tools, going around to each others garages and helping out with projects. As above, I don't see how having meetings in Hobart will enable people in Devonport or Burnie, let alone Launceston: will people from Burnie be lending you their crimping tool?

Let's say that there are 5 EV enthusiasts in Deloraine, or St Helens who want to start up a branch. If they did, would you then rename the branch in Hobart, the Hobart branch? You seem to imply from your message that you would. Would you undertake to do this?

You write that you, 'can always rename in the future if we want to, or have one Tasmanian body and multiple regional clubs'. Again, I think this shows a misunderstanding about how AEVA works. You wouldn't have 'regional clubs', you would have equal branches.


It just doesn't make sense to me to have only one branch in Tasmania. It seems to me that having a single branch, calling it the Tasmanian branch, and situating it in Hobart, with no plans to share meetings in the north, is exactly the opposite of being inclusive.


Is it really true that the National Executive have already voted on this? If so, this seems secretive, and to have been done with a lack of consideration. Think about this: the extant naming policy has, to my understanding existed for 40 years, and you don't change something like that lightly. Also, I would have thought that it would have at least needed a vote by the National Council - especially if it involves a change in policy.

User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

Name?

Post by 4Springs » Sun, 14 Jun 2015, 15:44

At the risk of perpetuating a never-ending argument, I'll see if I can articulate some of my thoughts. These are my thoughts, and my impressions of what other local members have expressed.
karlg wrote:....you then conclude that you should have a branch named the Tasmanian branch located only in Hobart.
....calling it the Tasmanian branch, and situating it in Hobart, with no plans to share meetings in the north
....I put it to you that situating branch meetings in Hobart is a disincentive for people in the north of the state
We have no definite plans for location of meetings, other than that the AGM is at the State Cinema in Hobart on 15th of July. It has been mentioned in the meetings so far that Campbell Town might be a good place to meet. I imagine that the people at the meetings will decide where meetings should be held based on the membership at the time, and on what exactly the branch is doing at the time. Calling the branch "Tasmanian" leaves this open. Calling the branch "Hobart" suggests meetings in Hobart.
karlg wrote:How do you think that reflects on the Adelaide, the Brisbane, the Canberra, the Melbourne, the Perth or the Sydney branches? Do you think they lack credibility?
I am not claiming any knowledge about these branches - I don't know their circumstances. I'll leave it up to their members to decide what is best for their situations.
karlg wrote:What tends to happen with AEVA is that the members represent themselves as members of AEVA, so, in fact are working even higher than the state level. Do you agree that that would give more credibility?
Yes, I have noticed that branch members speaking in the media don't tend to use the name of their branch. But there are situations where it is unavoidable. If our local chairperson is quoted in the newspaper then the attribution of "state chairperson" is surely better than "city chairperson" or "AEVA member". We'd rather have a branch name that we are proud to use instead of one that we'd rather hide in certain circumstances.
karlg wrote:....The point about branches is that they are situated where people get together, and are named after that place
....Coming back to meetings, it seems to me that they are the most important things about AEVA. Having branches doesn't make sense without people meeting face-to-face, chatting, getting to know each other, sharing in ideas and thoughts, sharing tools, going around to each others garages and helping out with projects.
....will people from Burnie be lending you their crimping tool?
So far the Tasmanian branch doesn't seem to fit this mould. We seem to be more concentrating on policy advice, tourism initiatives and large public-awareness events rather than home builds. So the person from Burnie is more likely to be asked to talk to their local council, or perhaps lend a hand at Agfest, than lend a tool. (That said, I do have a crimping tool if anyone wants to borrow it, just make sure you give it back before I need it next for the tractor!)
If we were named "Hobart" then the Burnie person is less likely to have attended a meeting to know what was required. And since there is only the one hypothetical Burnie member there are not the numbers to start a local branch. Using Skype to attend meetings has so far proved quite practical in this NBN-serviced state.
karlg wrote:....Let's say that there are 5 EV enthusiasts in Deloraine, or St Helens who want to start up a branch. If they did, would you then rename the branch in Hobart, the Hobart branch? You seem to imply from your message that you would. Would you undertake to do this?
....You write that you, 'can always rename in the future if we want to, or have one Tasmanian body and multiple regional clubs'. Again, I think this shows a misunderstanding about how AEVA works. You wouldn't have 'regional clubs', you would have equal branches.
....the extant naming policy has, to my understanding existed for 40 years, and you don't change something like that lightly. Also, I would have thought that it would have at least needed a vote by the National Council - especially if it involves a change in policy.
The constitution doesn't mention the naming of the branches, if there is such a policy I can't see that it is written down? Appeal to Tradition
If circumstances change I can't see why we couldn't rename branches (and sorry I use the word "club" - I'm used to using that in other organisations). If one whole branch was required to deal with Hobart stuff then why not name it the Hobart branch? As stated before though, I think it would be more likely that we would continue to have a state body. If there were enough people who wanted only to work locally then it would be logical to start a local branch.

The constitution seems to be nicely written in that it allows flexibility to meet the differing needs of differing people/regions/times. It lets local people decide what their local structure should be. As long as they adhere to the fairly broad purposes of the association then they can do this however they like. Surely this should extend to being able to name their own branch?
We have had a sum total of one AEVA meeting, and voted on one thing only. That was that we would "request permission to form a Tasmanian branch" of the AEVA. This motion with this wording was carried unanimously.

User avatar
jonescg
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu, 21 Jan 2010, 23:05
Real Name: Chris Jones
Location: Perth, WA.

Name?

Post by jonescg » Sun, 14 Jun 2015, 16:56

Karl - the National council passed the motion on the 10th of June 2015. The name is the Tasmanian Branch, and although Daryl noted the departure from convention, the vote was carried (all in favour of formation of the Tasmanian Branch).

Please put this to rest.

Cheers,
Chris
AEVA National Secretary, WA branch vice-chair

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 00:11

4Springs wrote: These are my thoughts, and my impressions of what other local members have expressed.
Thank you. How many of these are from outside the Hobart area?
4Springs wrote: We have no definite plans for location of meetings, other than that the AGM is at the State Cinema in Hobart on 15th of July. It has been mentioned in the meetings so far that Campbell Town might be a good place to meet. I imagine that the people at the meetings will decide where meetings should be held based on the membership at the time, and on what exactly the branch is doing at the time. Calling the branch "Tasmanian" leaves this open. Calling the branch "Hobart" suggests meetings in Hobart.
Leaving it 'open' isn't even a half promise to do something, so can't be taken as a justification.
That means you won't be having meetings outside Hobart so it would be the Hobart branch in everything but name.
4Springs wrote:
karlg wrote:How do you think that reflects on the Adelaide, the Brisbane, the Canberra, the Melbourne, the Perth or the Sydney branches? Do you think they lack credibility?
I am not claiming any knowledge about these branches - I don't know their circumstances. I'll leave it up to their members to decide what is best for their situations.
You are claiming that to be called the Hobart and not Tasmanian branch would diminish your credibility. This reflects on the current branches.
4Springs wrote:
karlg wrote:What tends to happen with AEVA is that the members represent themselves as members of AEVA, so, in fact are working even higher than the state level. Do you agree that that would give more credibility?
Yes, I have noticed that branch members speaking in the media don't tend to use the name of their branch. But there are situations where it is unavoidable. If our local chairperson is quoted in the newspaper then the attribution of "state chairperson" is surely better than "city chairperson" or "AEVA member". We'd rather have a branch name that we are proud to use instead of one that we'd rather hide in certain circumstances.
This is not an argument because you have no evidence to back your assertions, and 'rather' having one name than another is not a justification for altering a policy.

Are you scared that calling yourself the Hobart branch would deplete your pride? If it is the case, then where is your evidence? Sorry, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

But the chair of the branch you are proposing wouldn't represent the state as you would not have representation in your meetings from people outside the Hobart area.
4Springs wrote:
karlg wrote:....The point about branches is that they are situated where people get together, and are named after that place
....Coming back to meetings, it seems to me that they are the most important things about AEVA. Having branches doesn't make sense without people meeting face-to-face, chatting, getting to know each other, sharing in ideas and thoughts, sharing tools, going around to each others garages and helping out with projects.
....will people from Burnie be lending you their crimping tool?
So far the Tasmanian branch doesn't seem to fit this mould. We seem to be more concentrating on policy advice, tourism initiatives and large public-awareness events rather than home builds. So the person from Burnie is more likely to be asked to talk to their local council, or perhaps lend a hand at Agfest, than lend a tool. (That said, I do have a crimping tool if anyone wants to borrow it, just make sure you give it back before I need it next for the tractor!)
If we were named "Hobart" then the Burnie person is less likely to have attended a meeting to know what was required. And since there is only the one hypothetical Burnie member there are not the numbers to start a local branch. Using Skype to attend meetings has so far proved quite practical in this NBN-serviced state.
What you assert by supposition here is totally the contrary to my experience of how things really are. I am a member of the Canberra branch and that branch concerns itself exactly with policy and big public events (it also discusses hardware and projects). For example, we were the first to link the EV Festival with the AGM, and still have EV Festivals or similar every year. My experience is that meetings are fundamental to the development of trust and friendships that underpin the selfless commitments which are required to host public events - and to discuss policy issues.


Regarding naming policy, a policy does not have to be written down to be a working policy, it can be implied. The fact that every current branch is named after the city it is situated in shows there is a policy in place.


I note your link to the Wikipedia page discussing the Appeal to Tradition argument fallacy, and thank you for it. Was it not clear in my previous message that my position was, not that something should be kept because it was traditional, but that it is up to you (who wants to make a change) to put forward justifications which invalidate the tradition? That is, for example to point out why a past justification for the tradition is not currently valid. From the above, you have not done this, so there is no justification to make a change.


4Springs wrote: If circumstances change I can't see why we couldn't rename branches (and sorry I use the word "club" - I'm used to using that in other organisations). If one whole branch was required to deal with Hobart stuff then why not name it the Hobart branch? As stated before though, I think it would be more likely that we would continue to have a state body. If there were enough people who wanted only to work locally then it would be logical to start a local branch.

The constitution seems to be nicely written in that it allows flexibility to meet the differing needs of differing people/regions/times. It lets local people decide what their local structure should be. As long as they adhere to the fairly broad purposes of the association then they can do this however they like. Surely this should extend to being able to name their own branch?
We have had a sum total of one AEVA meeting, and voted on one thing only. That was that we would "request permission to form a Tasmanian branch" of the AEVA. This motion with this wording was carried unanimously.


Again, what would the response of the branch in Hobart be if people wanted to start a branch somewhere else in Tasmania? This is a very real possibility because a large proportion of the state's Tasmania lives outside easy access to Hobart (making it very different to other states), so there should be a plan to address this. You say you could change, but would you? Will you? If there is a realistic chance that other branches will form in Tasmania, the smart thing to do is to take that into account.



I suggest to you that if you called the branch situated in Hobart "The Hobart Branch", you would quickly have a branch starting up in the north of the state. This would allow people in the north to get together and have meetings and get all the advantages of being a branch of AEVA.

Therefore, it seems that by wanting to call yourself the Tasmanian branch, you wish to deny people outside the Hobart area from attending meetings - a video call is hardly a substitute for being there. (If it is as good as you imply, why not have the meetings in the north of the state, and the people in Hobart can then have the advantage?)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be negative towards you or your desire to have a branch, which I think is past time, and I don't think you or the people you conversed with deliberately plan this, but I think the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that you (as a group) at some level want to stop the creation of a branch in the north.

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 02:43

jonescg wrote: Karl - the National council passed the motion on the 10th of June 2015. The name is the Tasmanian Branch, and although Daryl noted the departure from convention, the vote was carried (all in favour of formation of the Tasmanian Branch).

Please put this to rest.

Cheers,
Chris


Hi Chris, I contacted the Canberra representative to the National Council and he maintains he didn't vote on this, and hadn't even heard about the question.

Chris, honestly, I believe that this is a bad decision for AEVA and for Tasmania. For example, you are cutting out the very real opportunity for there to be more than one branch in Tasmania.


In the previous messages, we have seen several propositions why the branch in Hobart should be called the Tasmanian branch. I have responded to the propositions, pointing out real considerations such that I feel that I have successfully rebutted those propositions. Of course some people will not agree with that - hopefully, some will. To me, this means that there is no justification for the request to name the branch in Hobart the Tasmanian branch. At the very least, there is a debate, and it would be expected that in coming to the vote that you mention, that the considerations of both sides were put forwards.

Did anyone question the request that was put forwards? Did they look at it critically?


In the previous messages, you can see that the request for calling the branch in Hobart the Tasmanian branch is based on a wrongful understanding about the way AEVA is structured and how it works: AEVA is one organisation and the branches are where people meet, not separate clubs in a hierarchy.

Did anyone ask what was the necessity for naming the branch in Hobart the Tasmanian branch?

Was the possibility that the request could have been based on wrongful assumptions considered?


The original decision to call the branches after the cities they are located in was made some time ago - I don't know, it could have been 40 years ago. Presumably, that decision was made for a valid set of reasons, and not randomly. Presumably, records of decisions are kept, for example, meeting minutes. An investigation could have been made to find out what the considerations were for coming to this policy. Given that, it could have then been determined whether the justifications for altering the policy were capable of invalidating them.

Did this happen?



On 2 June, 8 days before you say the vote was made, I sent an email to Daryl voicing my opposition to this and suggesting that members should be notified that a change in AEVA policy was in the offing. I also offered to provide a submission to the National Executive. I was not asked to.
Doesn't this seem deeply wrong to you?


On these grounds, would you put it to rest if you were in my position?


Regards,
Karl

User avatar
Chuq
Groupie
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun, 11 Jan 2015, 04:24
Real Name: Charles
Location: Hobart, Tas
Contact:

Name?

Post by Chuq » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 05:58

I've only been an AEVA member for a short time, but I have a lifetime of experience of living in Tasmania. For a group this size there is no other option. I see that no other state has grown to the point where there is more than one branch within the state. Given the smaller population in Tassie I don't see how two branches can be supported here for a long time. The name 'Tasmania' is inclusive. 'Hobart' is not - in fact it would exclude 4Springs who is from a town 3 hours from Hobart (1 hour from Launceston). Are you suggesting he wants to prevent a group forming in his area?

I grew up in Launceston and I know that the north vs south thing is a thorn in the side of many organisations in Tasmania, especially non profits with limited resources. Looking at some of the ideas raised at the last meeting, for example the electric highway - would the northern group be only proposing charging stations in the north the state and vice versa? Would the other relevant stakeholders have to deal with two AEVA branches?

To quote from the constitution:
PART 8    —      BRANCHES OF THE ASSOCIATION
82   Branches
(1) The Association shall have Branches in such states, areas and cities as the National Council may decide.


I don't see what incentive you have for opposing this?

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 15:30

Hello Chuq,

Thank you for your message.

(I was born in Burnie and grew up in Launceston (went to Glen Dhu primary, Kings Meadows High and Launceston Matric) before going to uni in Hobart and spending 10 years there.)

It is about the north-south thing, but not in the way you think:

We all agree that the population in the north versus the south is about the same. I think we can also agree that they are two quite separate communities in several different ways, and that the 200 km of the Midlands Highway (a misnomer if ever there was one!) makes them very separate.

I'm sure that we can all agree that current EV technology (apart from Teslas) means a maximum range in the order of 100-160 km. This means that unless they go on trailers or overnight, EVs from the south can't go to meetings in the north and vice-versa. This is an indication that it is not practical for AEVA meetings in one population area to cover people in the other.

I think we can agree that while is it practical for people from Sorrel, Kingston or South Arm to go to meetings in Hobart, it is not practical for people in Launceston, Burnie, Devonport etc to do so.


Now, let's take the north-south out and make up two cities. To make the comparison clear, let's call them Melbourne1 and Melbourne2. They are about the same size, in the same state, and 200 km apart. Now, let's say that Melbourne1 starts up an AEVA branch and calls itself the Vic. branch. What of Melbourne2? If they are the same size, shouldn't Melbourne2 also have a branch? Every reason for having a branch in Melbourne2 is a reason for having a branch in the north of Tasmania.

Do you see the point? The fact that you have two similarly sized populations very close to each other, in the same state, and that one moves to start up a branch automatically means that the other should have the same conditions to start up one as well.

Sure, Hobart is more advanced in the journey to being ready for a branch. That's fine. I have two cats from the same litter, and one is bigger than the other.


All of the above seems to me to be simple and non-controversial. Surely you would agree with it?


The problem is that the whole argument for having a branch in Hobart named "The Tasmanian branch" is predicated upon there being one and only one branch in Tasmania, and that just doesn't match the reality.

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 16:26

Chuq wrote: To quote from the constitution:
PART 8    —      BRANCHES OF THE ASSOCIATION
82   Branches
(1) The Association shall have Branches in such states, areas and cities as the National Council may decide.


I don't see what incentive you have for opposing this?


1/ I am not arguing whether there should or should not be branches in Tasmania. I think there should, and I think there should be at least two. I do not think that two should start up immediately or at the same time. I think that there should be a branch in Hobart, and it appears that conditions are now such that it can be created, which is fantastic. I think that this branch should be called "The Hobart Branch" following implied AEVA policy. I also think that when people are ready, there should be a branch in the north named after the city it is located in (again following implied AEVA policy).

2/ Thanks for pointing out that the National Council needs to decide on this issue. I do not believe that the meeting on 10 June was a meeting of the National Council, so I believe that that vote is not valid.


Please understand this: branches, to my understanding at least, are really nothing more than a group of EV enthusiasts getting together to have meetings and activities. All members of AEVA are in the same club/organisation, so there is no need to have state-level groupings. Wherever you have 5 or more people who want to get together on an official basis, you can have a branch.

It seems to me that the people putting forward the idea that there should be a branch called the Tasmanian brand have a different understanding about how branches work - I don't think they understand that AEVA works differently.

User avatar
Chuq
Groupie
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun, 11 Jan 2015, 04:24
Real Name: Charles
Location: Hobart, Tas
Contact:

Name?

Post by Chuq » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 16:44

karlg wrote: Now, let's say that Melbourne1 starts up an AEVA branch and calls itself the Vic. branch.


This is the core of the issue. I wasn't at the meeting, but as I understand it, there were a number of northern/Launceston people in attendance. It wasn't that Hobart people called themselves the Tas branch - it was Tasmanians from across the state that called themselves that.

It would be good if someone who was there could confirm?

rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

Name?

Post by rhills » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 18:07

I was born in Melbourne but have lived in Perth for many years now. However, I don't believe that gives me any right to tell Victorians how to organise their branch structure.

I strongly support the right of Tasmanians to decide what branch structure they want. Frankly, I think there are more important things for all of us to put our energy into anyway.

That said, like it or lump it, Australia's national political (and administrative) structure is a three-tier one: National -> State -> Regional (Local Councils when we think politically) so I think that a similar structure just makes sense for the AEVA anyway.

Karl, having State branches does not in any way preclude having regional branches: I am not aware of anything in the AEVA Constitution or rules that say we can't have a three-tier hierarchical structure. Such a structure would match the way things are done in Australia.

I think we need to leave the AEVA members in the Apple Isle to decide what structure they want for themselves and get on with more important matters.

Cheers,
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Jul 2014 - Jun 2018
Total Petrol: 586.8L
ODO: 42885
Av Consumption: 1.37 L/100km

poprock
Groupie
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri, 09 Dec 2011, 01:12
Real Name: Brian Rockley
Location: Cessnock

Name?

Post by poprock » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 18:38

Why not the Apple Isle Branch?

rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

Name?

Post by rhills » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 18:50

Stirrer!
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Jul 2014 - Jun 2018
Total Petrol: 586.8L
ODO: 42885
Av Consumption: 1.37 L/100km

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 20:59

Rhills, I agree totally with you: if they want to have a Tasmanian branch as well as a Hobart branch, no worries.

The issue is that they want a single branch run from Hobart, called 'The Tasmanian branch' to cover the whole state, and that is simply not possible.

They also want AEVA to change its policy so they can do that.

It seems to me that the first is wrong, so the second is unnecessary.

(I have discussed these issues in previous messages if you want more detail.)


Regards!

User avatar
jonescg
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu, 21 Jan 2010, 23:05
Real Name: Chris Jones
Location: Perth, WA.

Name?

Post by jonescg » Thu, 18 Jun 2015, 03:07

Karl - Mark is the chair of the Canberra AEVA. He's not on the national executive - President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Membership secretary. This group of 5 has the executive power to decide on matters of national interest - we vote on this at every AGM.

If a second branch decides to form in Tasmania, the 'Tasmanian branch' name can be retired and new names can be issued. Is it really that hard?

Anyway - their branch can decide matters for themselves, and the national council wholeheartedly supports them.
AEVA National Secretary, WA branch vice-chair

User avatar
jonescg
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu, 21 Jan 2010, 23:05
Real Name: Chris Jones
Location: Perth, WA.

Name?

Post by jonescg » Thu, 18 Jun 2015, 03:44

karlg wrote: Rhills, I agree totally with you: if they want to have a Tasmanian branch as well as a Hobart branch, no worries.

The issue is that they want a single branch run from Hobart, called 'The Tasmanian branch' to cover the whole state, and that is simply not possible.
Perth does this exactly as described. We could have called ourselves the WA branch; it wouldn't really matter. However I can see a Bunbury branch being likely in the next 5 years. If we were called the WA branch, then we'd just rename to suit.
karlg wrote:They also want AEVA to change its policy so they can do that.
Except it's NOT AEVA policy! It's merely an unwritten convention which has been open to breaking since 1973. I'm stoked that it's being broken!

AEVA National Secretary, WA branch vice-chair

User avatar
Adverse Effects
Senior Member
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat, 01 Jan 2011, 03:30
Real Name: Adverse Effects
Location: Brisbane

Name?

Post by Adverse Effects » Thu, 18 Jun 2015, 03:53

jonescg wrote: I'm stoked that it's being broken!


umm its not being "broken" its just being ignored as its only a "norm" not a "rule"

and karlg why have you got such a bug up your ass about this? your the web admin why is it so important that its your way or the hiway?

ITS A STRING OF LETTERS   

chill dude

and yss its your right to delete this post or even my account but i havent done any thing wrong just like the Tasmanian Branch guys havent
Last edited by Adverse Effects on Thu, 18 Jun 2015, 04:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gabz
Senior Member
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu, 08 Aug 2013, 03:30
Real Name: Gabriel Noronha
Location: Maitland NSW
Contact:

Name?

Post by Gabz » Thu, 18 Jun 2015, 04:06

it works in reverse too I choose not to become an AEVA member for ages because it's a sydney branch. (still yet to attend a meeting so might review my membership)..but I got the sh*ts with bicycle NSW because they only sent me crap about bike paths in the sydney CBD and didn't do much outside greater sydney. /end slightly off topic rant.
Corporate Member Recharging NSW Pty Ltd. http://rechargingnsw.com.au/

User avatar
carnut1100
Groupie
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue, 24 Feb 2009, 16:39
Real Name: Greg Milligan
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Name?

Post by carnut1100 » Fri, 19 Jun 2015, 02:00

Tasmania is a funny place....I really think it is better to call it the "Tasmania" branch until such time as there is another formed....as soon as sonething gets tagged "Hobart" or "Launceston" the attitude goes against it from the other end of the state...we really are a funny lot!
Hopefully in a few years there will be enough EVs here to make a thriving rivalry between two strong branches...but now it's probably best to just pull together for EVs of Tasmania...

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Fri, 19 Jun 2015, 04:11

jonescg wrote: Karl - Mark is the chair of the Canberra AEVA. He's not on the national executive - President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Membership secretary. This group of 5 has the executive power to decide on matters of national interest - we vote on this at every AGM.

If a second branch decides to form in Tasmania, the 'Tasmanian branch' name can be retired and new names can be issued. Is it really that hard?

Anyway - their branch can decide matters for themselves, and the national council wholeheartedly supports them.


Yes, Mark is on the National Council, not the National Executive. You wrote in a previous message that the NC voted on this. It seems it was the NE, and as pointed in a previous message, the Constitution says that only the NC can vote on branch composition.

Yes, of course, the name can be retired. I addressed this point in an earlier message.

karlg
Groupie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu, 28 Aug 2008, 15:23
Real Name: Karl Goiser
Location: Canberra

Name?

Post by karlg » Fri, 19 Jun 2015, 04:18

"However I can see a Bunbury branch being likely in the next 5 years. If we were called the WA branch, then we'd just rename to suit."

.. except that you won't have to do it because people in the past have already considered and come up with a good solution.


"Except it's NOT AEVA policy! It's merely an unwritten convention which has been open to breaking since 1973. I'm stoked that it's being broken!"

If an organisation (which AEVA is) repeatedly makes the same decisions, it's a policy. It doesn't matter whether it's written down or not.

Post Reply