In my opinion the draft Constitution is generally logical and supportive of the objectives of the Association.
However I think the Membership clause requires some revision. Keep in mind that it is a Ratepayers association.
The Draft proposes:-
5. Membership of Association
Membership of the Association shall be restricted to:
a. Residents of the Territory.
b. Persons who pay rates in respect of property situated in the Territory and spouses/partners of such persons.
c. Persons not included in either (a) or (b) above but who have interests in the Territory and have the approval of the Association by the Public Officer.
My concerns include:-
a. Residents of the Territory - Are we suggesting any person (regardless of age ie a 5yr old child) who currently resides within the Territory is eligible for membership? I suggest we at least consider an age limit. - And perhaps a minimum period of residency ie 6 months?
c....Literally any person approved by the Public Officer. - Are we really sure this is a good idea? I suggest this creates a potential for improper voter stacking. It might be more democratic to have the Public officer propose membership of an outside interested party and have the membership ratified at a general meeting.
Hi Brett - I'll be away until Thursday evening so won't be able to contribute much until then. But my initial thought it that you should be able to accomplish most of the revision thru this forum together with the surveymonkey survey tool. The aim would be to aim to get close to consensus via the forum and hopefully you should get the votes at the meeting.
Thanks Ross, I too am becoming more used to this forum. Thanks again to those who developed the website.
An issue on which I would appreciate your comments as I am sure the committee would also is what format should the consultative process take.
I am pretty certain that for a lot of the membership the constitutional review is not compelling bed time reading.
This forum provides members the opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions but that is probably not enough. The GM this coming Saturday will enable some discussion but the Gm should not become bogged down on this one issue. Do we invite interested members to join a focus group to explore the issue in detail?
Your comments and suggestions would be appreciated.
One of the issues we face in trying to bring about a change in the rules is clause 11 in the existing constitution. The clause requires that a notice of motion to change the constitution is given at one GM and voted on at a subsequent GM. The view we have formed is that the motion put at the first meeting needs to be specific as to the changes being proposed. This would require a settled form of the new rules to be part of the motion put at the first meeting and voted on at the second meeting. Any attempt to move a motion at the second meeting to amend the original motion by way of amending the proposed rule changes would appear to negate the whole process if that proposed motion was passed at the second meeting. We could end up being stuck in a revolving door!
We need to be in a position that the proposed motion put at the first meeting is one that is going to be passed by a majority of at least three quarters of those attending and voting at the second meeting.
A somewhat awkward situation but one that needs to be embraced.
Okay Brett - I'll leave it at that for the moment. May have more to contribute when it moves to the consultation phase.
As an aside I think this Forum concept is a valuable method. It provides all members an opportunity to be involved in the formulation of policy and teasing out of contentious issues prior to the matter becoming an agenda item of which members are expected to be across the issues in order to have a considered vote.
Thanks Ross, your proposed 5a would work. A person can log onto the AEC site and print off their enrolment details as evidence of their residence in the territory.
One of the issues that the working party did ponder on is the how does the committee when in receipt of a new application for membership verify the bona fides of the applicant, that is, they satisfy the membership criteria.
One suggestion is that the membership application form requires the production of a copy of a current rates notice or , incorporating your suggestion, a copy of an electoral roll search, in order to satisfy 5a and 5b.
Another issue the working party observed is that if there are multiple owners registered on title, eg 4 brothers and each has a spouse/partner then potentially there are 8 memberships involving 8 votes available to that property compared to the single registered property owner next door who has one membership and one vote.
Then there is the issue of the landlord and tenant. One can join under 5a and the other under 5b.
Members might wish to consider whether it is one membership, one vote per property.
You mentioned in your comment last night that it is a ratepayers association. Yet the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom allowed non rate payers to be members! Perhaps one day a name change might be appropriate to consider? Community association?
These are some of the issues that the committee will need to tease out during the consultation phase. It may be the case that the members accept that 5a,b,c stay as they are.
Hi Brett - I take your point re discriminatory. I wonder if i have been overthinking this. Maybe it can be as simple as:-
a. Residents who are currently enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission using an address within the Territory and who are eligible to vote in a Federal or Tasmanian Election.
A clause similar to this will capture the age issue (ie you can enrol at age 16 but not vote until 18) and also, in order to enrol, you must have resided at the current address for at least one month.
It also allows for circumstances such as if an adult child resides with its parents etc.
b. Persons who pay rates in respect of property situated in the Territory and spouses/partners of such persons.
c. Persons not included in either (a) or (b) above but who have interests in the Territory and have the approval of the Association etc etc.
Ross, just to reinforce the point that Robyn was making, the membership provisions 5 a. to c. are lifted straight out of the original DSRA constitution and are not a proposed amendment and are up for discussion during the consultative stage. Having said that your proposal for an age limit for membership appears to address an issue which has not been confronted by previous committees and the proposal might also be discriminatory. How do we deal with the situation where pursuant to a testamentary trust a property is purchased and occupied on a full time basis by the beneficiary who is not the registered owner or ratepayer compared to the situation where a property is purchased and registered in the name of the purchaser but is only occupied on an occasional basis. Under your proposal the beneficiary would be required to sit out the 6 month qualifying period whereas the "shackie' would be able to take out immediate membership.
It is not a perfect world.
As for rule 26 it might read as "clunky" to some but it does cover all the bases.
Well I suppose it is tried and tested!
Thanks for your comment. The committee and working group are really pleased that community members are engaging with the Rules of the Association. I agree that the wording here is awkward. However, it's straight from the Model Rules. Our approach was not to alter anything in the Model Rules unless it was contrary to the Association's requirements. What do you think?
'26. Election of Numbers of Committee' - I know what this is trying to say but it is a bit odd - how about '26. The number of committee members required to be elected.' Or some such?
Thanks for your questions Ross. You've raised some valid issues about the membership clause. Perhaps the first line of rule 5 (membership) could read: Membership of the Association shall be restricted to persons over 18 years of age who ...
The intent of rule 5c is that membership applications by people who do not meet the requirements of 5a and 5b need to be approved by the Association (at a general meeting), not by the Public Officer. The phrase 'by the Public Officer' was supposed to be added to the end of the next rule ... that person is entitled to have his or her name entered in the register of members by the Public Officer. Thanks for picking that up. Robyn