Hi All,
The agendas have been distributed and are available for download from the AKANSW web site.
Please have a read and attend your club meeting to vote on the items and elections.
In South Australia all clubs have a chance to vote on them and send your delegate to the next AKASA meeting with your votes in hand. If you read the agenda and are not sure of anything please ring me on 0419718672. I was going to arrange an open discussion forum to run through the agenda items (as I used to do when I was Southerns delegate) but the AKASA delegates decided against this. Southern have asked me to attend there next meeting.
I am sure this discussion will discuss the nominations for AKA National executive and also the appointed positions. With all of the discussions on here it is disapointing that no new names have been put forward. Maybe it has more to do with the current system and the belief that nothing will change. This is why Governance needs to be enacted and done now.
Contrary to what others have posted on here I am in favour of governance and a skills based board. I argued for it and in my opinion it went pear shaped last time when the push was to put the same people into the board without having a skills based board selected. The skills based board should take over the running of the AKA when elected with the executive remaining in place for 6 months to assist with the transition. This was in one of the models and had my support. The way in which the board is elected is another item that went around and around but in the final version NSW had the clause inserted that it would be the states that voted eg one vote per state but that the delegate would not have the vote. It would come in the written form from the state secretary to avoid any deal making opportunities. You will notice my agenda item to have this system introduced for all AGM's. Any how this is slightly off topic.
Regards,
Craig Denton
The agendas have been distributed and are available for download from the AKANSW web site.
Please have a read and attend your club meeting to vote on the items and elections.
In South Australia all clubs have a chance to vote on them and send your delegate to the next AKASA meeting with your votes in hand. If you read the agenda and are not sure of anything please ring me on 0419718672. I was going to arrange an open discussion forum to run through the agenda items (as I used to do when I was Southerns delegate) but the AKASA delegates decided against this. Southern have asked me to attend there next meeting.
I am sure this discussion will discuss the nominations for AKA National executive and also the appointed positions. With all of the discussions on here it is disapointing that no new names have been put forward. Maybe it has more to do with the current system and the belief that nothing will change. This is why Governance needs to be enacted and done now.
Contrary to what others have posted on here I am in favour of governance and a skills based board. I argued for it and in my opinion it went pear shaped last time when the push was to put the same people into the board without having a skills based board selected. The skills based board should take over the running of the AKA when elected with the executive remaining in place for 6 months to assist with the transition. This was in one of the models and had my support. The way in which the board is elected is another item that went around and around but in the final version NSW had the clause inserted that it would be the states that voted eg one vote per state but that the delegate would not have the vote. It would come in the written form from the state secretary to avoid any deal making opportunities. You will notice my agenda item to have this system introduced for all AGM's. Any how this is slightly off topic.
Regards,
Craig Denton
Comments6
Craig’s post has beaten me to the punch!
I was also going to ask for reasons as to why:
After all the complaints from people on forums..... NOT ONE ...has put up their name for a position to make change.
So the same old same old will continue and everyone is obviously happy with it!!
On another note I would just like to clarify the following.
Several of the nominations have been endorsed by SA.
It would seem that SA therefore supports these people. (a fair assumption)
I would just like to make it perfectly clear that due to the ridiculous time frame of our current system there is not enough time for the nominations to be received by state distributed to clubs - The club have a meeting to discuss it and then get the endorsements back to the state for forwarding to the National office.
So the clubs in SA were asked to send the nom support to the office for collating and forwarding.
Unfortunately, either due to apathy or the time frame only one club completed the request so the positions endorsed by SA only reflect the desires of one club and not necessarily the members of this state.
Therefore it should be noted that when it comes time to vote on these positions the SA vote may well differ from the suggested and inferred support!
Cheers
Ian
Apathy or a complete loss of faith in the system???
Fancy seeing names of ppl who led their state to the fed court and receive a guilty verdict putting their hand up!! and fancy a state endorsing it??? the cupboard MUST be bare??
As you say Ian, the time frame is poor and needs adressing it CAN be done if everyone works around the proper process. make this agenda come out at least 12 weeks prior to the meeting this should allow sufficient time for the due process to be followed. clubs/states will adjust their time frames to get motions onto this meeting accordingly, then we can see more positive input.
Of late I have noticed many clubs and states doing their "own" thing in many instances, eg class structures, when the process is too hard they use the "local class " rule to design whats best for them, hang what national says lets just design our own classes, at club level anyway, we already see some allowing B graders into TAGR, a push for TAGR into clubman, Jnr Pro, etc etc, all just seeking state approovals, again why bother trying to push something through at national level if its a "local" issue? hence the "who cares about what national think? line.
It may see a fragmentation of the sport where different states run same engine specs but with different class requirements eg weights tyres, licence grades, engine etc? it may start at club days but then may migrate to major meeting level if prooved succesful. The top line stuff eg state/national/CIK may stay as per book, which may not be all that bad as we could then have the clear defined line betrween the clubby and semi/pro/pro drivers???
It may just be well stuff national lets just play our own game.???
Ian Mooney said:Craig’s post has beaten me to the punch! I was also going to ask for reasons as to why: After all the complaints from people on forums..... NOT ONE ...has put up their name for a position to make change.
So the same old same old will continue and everyone is obviously happy with it!!
On another note I would just like to clarify the following.
Several of the nominations have been endorsed by SA.
It would seem that SA therefore supports these people. (a fair assumption)
I would just like to make it perfectly clear that due to the ridiculous time frame of our current system there is not enough time for the nominations to be received by state distributed to clubs - The club have a meeting to discuss it and then get the endorsements back to the state for forwarding to the National office.
So the clubs in SA were asked to send the nom support to the office for collating and forwarding.
Unfortunately, either due to apathy or the time frame only one club completed the request so the positions endorsed by SA only reflect the desires of one club and not necessarily the members of this state.
Therefore it should be noted that when it comes time to vote on these positions the SA vote may well differ from the suggested and inferred support!
Cheers
Ian
The move to allow D,C, & B to run TaGR was simply an answer to the problem of very sparse fields in TaG - locally. We've had a number of meetings at Toowoomba where there might be 2 or 3 TaG Lights, and 1 or 2 TaG Heavy's. These guys would arrive and cruise around all day, with no competition. Nobody was happy, they aren't pot hunters. So, as an experiment, we elected to run Twmba TaGR. A few people said we'd have the B-graders running away at the head of the pack, and the C & D people unhappy at the back.
Such was not the case! A good mix through the field, and a very happy C grader holding out a B grader for 2nd at the end of the day.
Perhaps this sort of result will let those further up the chain realise it's not a bad thing to open TaGR up to B on a National level.
What's this got to do with the subject? We need to lead by example, I think.
Craig,
Nice to see your re-commitment to a skilled board for the national governing body after the treacherous deviation taken by the NKC last year trying to secretly install themselves as an unskilled board destined to finally cripple the AKA with more of their disastrous 'leadership'.
No doubt you've seen and detested the most recent nonsense that actually raises the unskilled aspect and the failings of the current system to another level, leaving the NKC intact and adding descriptive designations to the Secretariat positions.
Sorry boys and girls, as the old saying goes, just because you drive a Ferrari, doesn't make you a Ferrari driver and so whilst you might call a Secretariat position by another name, it does not bring skills to the position.
And leaving the NKC in place ? Why ? It is against the ASC reccomendations and unnecessary in any case because a general meeting of members can exercise the members rights to ratify or overule the Secretariats decisions. And the way the NKC has been conducted for many years now, it is just as likely to run off on tangents of it's own.
So Craig, please tell them for the umpteenth time, implement the best management practice model that has already been approved by the members and tell them that as much as they don't want to let go, they are just the proxies for their indolent members and need to move on for the good of the sport.
Regards
Graeme Hancock
Can somebody tell me what was the wording of the Motion that endorsed the Governance model? Was there a timeline involved?
And where/when do notices of the AGM get posted?
AKANSW site has it also kartsportnews has a link.
Dennis Neagle said:Can somebody tell me what was the wording of the Motion that endorsed the Governance model? Was there a timeline involved?
And where/when do notices of the AGM get posted?