AGM Resolutions 2015

Fo those who are not local to a branch, or looking at starting one
Post Reply
User avatar
Gabz
Senior Member
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu, 08 Aug 2013, 03:30
Real Name: Gabriel Noronha
Location: Maitland NSW
Contact:

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by Gabz » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 02:02

So at the Perth AGM there is some resolutions to change the structure of AEVA to National, state and maybe regional divisions. If your not a member or don't have your emails handy here is a link http://noronha.id.au/wp-content/uploads ... utions.pdf

I'm interested on peoples thoughts on this my gut reaction is that it's a bad idea but that could just be because our state government is really good a shafting regional centres at the moment.

There is also some practicality I’m not sure on it's easy for say ACT Canberra branch becomes ACT branch and it's very unlikely to have a division. But what happens when you get a bigger state? If Qld spawns a Townsville division and brisbane will all the meetings be online or will someone have a big drive ahead of them.

The resolution also doesn't state the compositions of a state committee or how it's voted on. expect for it says that each division will a rep on the state committee which you would assume nominated and voted on by the division.

lastly what is the purpose of the state branch ? it seems to be for political purposes ? and financial oversight ? Is it just creating double the amount of work ?
Corporate Member Recharging NSW Pty Ltd. http://rechargingnsw.com.au/

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

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by Gabz » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 02:42

Not sure if what's intended but the way I read it seems to imply there will be a state branch NSW ie Sydney with a Newcaslte regional group with a single rep from Newcastle on the Sydney committee. not a NSW committee elected by the entire state membership a Sydney group with it's own committee and a Newcastle group wit it's own committee.

Motion 3 by using the word "regional" implies that the group in the capital city runs the show.
Corporate Member Recharging NSW Pty Ltd. http://rechargingnsw.com.au/

User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by 4Springs » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 03:39

I think this is a good idea to discuss this here - thanks Gabz. I'd like to get a feel for how it would work before I vote.

My opinion is that state branches make sense for lobbying purposes. If a local council in Mackay is asked to contribute towards charging stations I think it would be better for the request to come from the QLD branch rather than the Brisbane branch (this is assuming there is no Mackay branch). I reckon the branches will (should) be doing more of this type of work into the future.
The QLD branch would make submissions to state and local governments, seek statewide sponsorship do anything else that looks better with 'QLD' in front of it. They would also distribute funds out to regional groups.
If there were enough people in the Brisbane area who didn't feel the need to be involved in the lobbying-type stuff then a Brisbane regional group could be formed. If this was the case then perhaps the QLD branch would only do the state stuff. And so perhaps those members wouldn't meet all that often (four times a year minimum from the constitution).

But as Gabz said, this doesn't seem to make so much sense for a regional group situated a long way from the state branch.

In motion 2 it states that at least one member from the regional group must be on the "State or Territory Management Committee". There is no such thing in the constitution - does this mean the Branch Committee?
Ahh, now I re-read Gabz' post I think I understand better. So the Townsville group might vote for one or more delegates to the QLD branch committee. I think I understand the intention of this rule, it is there to make sure that the regional group doesn't become too disconnected from the AEVA. I agree this seems to mean a lot of travelling for that person, although I suppose it is only that four meetings a year, and Skype is an option.


Right at the moment of course this wouldn't mean any changes. There is only one branch (or fewer) in each State/Territory. But with Newcastle thinking of "branching out" ~ahem~ it would be good to get an idea of how these regional groups could work.

User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by 4Springs » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 03:56

Gabz wrote: Not sure if what's intended but the way I read it seems to imply there will be a state branch NSW ie Sydney with a Newcaslte regional group with a single rep from Newcastle on the Sydney committee. not a NSW committee elected by the entire state membership a Sydney group with it's own committee and a Newcastle group wit it's own committee.

Motion 3 by using the word "regional" implies that the group in the capital city runs the show.

Yeah, I'm thinking of my Rural Youth days. We had lots of small clubs with their own committees. Each club elected two representatives to "region" (one of North, North West or South). The regional committees met less frequently, and in turn had delegates to the State body. The state body met less frequently still, and consisted of those regional delegates plus some other delegates from other parts of Rural Youth which were not club based.
So we had a three tiered system within a club of about 500 members. This was a mite unwieldy from my memory, and the club membership often had little idea what was going on at the state level.

Anyway, I digress.
I do like the idea of the state branch being made up of delegates from the regional groups. But it is difficult to think of how to get there from where we are now. Perhaps the current branches spawn off a state branch? So the state branch becomes almost like a sub-committee that does the statey stuff. And the financial stuff. Except for ACT because they're special.

User avatar
jonescg
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Thu, 21 Jan 2010, 23:05
Real Name: Chris Jones
Location: Perth, WA.

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by jonescg » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 10:08

I can see merit in state-based branches, but you risk leaving the regions out, thanks to our city-centric population. Perhaps the idea should be to encourage more regional branches, with a representative from each region making up a state committee. Either way, transport is a state based issue, and would best be served by state based representation. Of course, there is a national representation too.

Running a few scenarios out, we could envisage about 4 Queensland branches, 3 NSW, 2 WA and 2 in Victoria. Perhaps not too unwieldy, but it would be important to ensure that all state groups are in regular communication. The issue about funds allocation is potentially quite sticky too. If the Newcastle branch raises $4000 at a cake stall, the NSW branch (legacy Sydney Branch) would keep it. Makes accounting easier, but is it fair? I think if we could clarify how it works, I could definitely support it. However there are some potential pitfalls as written.
I challenge you to come up with a better invention than the bicycle

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

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by Gabz » Fri, 04 Sep 2015, 15:51

that's my problem it's assumed that Sydney will just become the state branch not 3 levels. I think if it was proposing 3 levels for all states and territories. I would be more supportive.

National --positions elected by all entire membership with 1 rep elected by each state.
State -- to look after financials and state stuff. positions elected by entire state membership with 1 rep elected by each division.
Divisions -- responsible for local events and meetups. positions elected by division members.

To achieve the above more resolution needs to be created.

Now regardless of how many divisions a state my have they all have 2 committees a state and a division since one will look after financials and politics and the other will look after local meetups events track days etc.. with no rules about both the committees having the exact same members if there are no other divisions in the state even then you may find that some people are happy be to on the division committee to organise events but aren't interested in state based lobbing so you may have 2 separate committees even with a single division.

Regardless of how much I agree the with the idea of a state branch the current motions are poorly defined, and constructed and won't achieve it in a fair and transparent manner.
Corporate Member Recharging NSW Pty Ltd. http://rechargingnsw.com.au/

User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by 4Springs » Sun, 06 Sep 2015, 15:56

Gabz wrote:
National --positions elected by all entire membership with 1 rep elected by each state.
State -- to look after financials and state stuff. positions elected by entire state membership with 1 rep elected by each division.
Divisions -- responsible for local events and meetups. positions elected by division members.

To achieve the above more resolution needs to be created.

Now regardless of how many divisions a state my have they all have 2 committees a state and a division since one will look after financials and politics and the other will look after local meetups events track days etc.. with no rules about both the committees having the exact same members if there are no other divisions in the state even then you may find that some people are happy be to on the division committee to organise events but aren't interested in state based lobbing so you may have 2 separate committees even with a single division.

Agreed!
I reckon we should give the "regional division" a better name though. What about "club"? So then we'd have:

AEVA National (the Association)
AEVA State/Territory Branches
AEVA Clubs

All members are AEVA members, they belong to a State/Territory Branch and possibly a Club.
The current constitution defines a branch. I think this is fine for a State/Territory Branch. Minimum 4 meetings per year etc.
The clubs would be beyond the scope of the constitution. Thus these motions to vote on I suppose.

So what can we do now - before the AGM? Are we able to work out a re-wording now and take it along? Or does it have to be tabled beforehand?

As an exercise I've done some re-wording myself. I've kept the word "group", although I prefer "club":

I reckon Motion 1 is fine as written, although perhaps take out that one word "main". So:
Motion 1
That each State or Territory will have only one Branch, and that should be in the name of that State or Territory. (EG Queensland Branch)

Motion 2 I'd like to reword a bit for clarity, but it also essentially doesn't change:
Motion 2
That a Branch may form one or more Regional Groups, which shall be under the control of the Branch and answerable to it. Any such Group shall have at least one member on the Branch Committee.
I took out the word 'Division' (it's divisive!) and clarified that it is the Branch that makes any groups.

Motion 3 I don't understand too well. It says there must be at least 8 Branch members - does that mean it allows for non-AEVA members? I don't like that idea. I reckon all club members should be AEVA members. Since all club members are also Branch members, they can do things on behalf of the Branch as they do now. But they can't do anything that goes against what the Branch has decided, the same as now. I'm not sure we need Motion 3? Anyway I've had a go at tidying it up a bit so that it says what I think it should be meaning:
Motion 3
Regional Groups may be formed at the discretion of the State or Territory Branch. A Group is made of at least 8 AEVA members, all members are also members of the Branch. A Group may run events and propose motions to the Branch, but may not pass any resolution on behalf of AEVA, nor make policy representation to any outside body without written approval of the Branch.

Motion 4 I'm fine with. I'll include it here for completeness, slightly edited because I couldn't help myself:
Motion 4
A Regional Group may apply to the State or Territory Branch for funds to run an event. All funds shall belong to the Branch and be accountable to and by the Branch. All monies shall be recorded in the Branch returns.




User avatar
evric
Site Admin
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun, 20 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Eric
Location: Adelaide SA
Contact:

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by evric » Sun, 06 Sep 2015, 18:38

Just to clarify a few things...

At the moment, the structure is:

- National Committee and Councillors (Constitution Rule 45) http://www.aeva.asn.au/wiki/constitution
- Branches (named mainly after the major city of the state).
Motion 1, if passed will change the branch naming to the state or territory name.

Motion 2 will allow for the formation of Regional Groups.
You can unofficially call them Clubs as you can for the Branches. I do this personally now.

Motion 3 sets up the composition of the Regional Groups stating that all members of the Group are AEVA members and under the Membership system, members of a Branch "Group" (as everyone is now). For reporting purposes we will also be setting up a Membership "Group" for each Regional Group.

Motion 4 just sets out how the financials will work. This is fairly flexible and will probably work the Branches similarly to the way the Branches now work with National.

Eric Rodda
AEVA Membership Secretary
Last edited by evric on Sun, 06 Sep 2015, 08:42, edited 1 time in total.
Prius Plug-in Conversion: http://www.evplus.com.au ...Holden Barina EV: http://www.evric.kestar.com.au

User avatar
4Springs
Senior Member
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu, 23 Dec 2010, 01:14
Real Name: Christopher Walkden
Location: Selbourne, TAS

AGM Resolutions 2015

Post by 4Springs » Mon, 07 Sep 2015, 13:32

Great - thanks Eric.
At first read (and second and third!) I wasn't so sure about these resolutions. After thrashing it out here I now think I understand them well enough to discuss it at our upcoming (state) meeting.

Cheers,
Christopher.

Post Reply