I have had this concern from day 1 Peter. the real succes will be the make up of thee various sub committees. IF we can get skilled karters onto these committees we will go somewhere get cronies of the past and we go NOWHERE.
The porcess should be clear and transparent you would THINK, but this IS the AKA of old, silent manouvering withy scant regard to their membership as usual.
I will be very disappointed if the current exec fid themselves on the sub committees without a process of nomination and voting, ie self appointed. I will be every disappointed if they do get voted in, we need NEW faces anything else will be a con job. The only saving grace I believe will be the committess will be of 6 people or so so unlikely to be controlled by one person's ego, but this will depend on the selection/nomination processes which gets me back to my original concern.
the silence is WORRYING
I would imagine - and this is only pure speculation - that the new board will put together a process that selects people to fill the various subcommittees. I think the board has met once now (weekend after nationals, I believe), but we've not seen any communication from them yet, I don't think.
You'd expect the process for filling those subcommittees would be near the top of their list.
Let's hope transparency is also near the top of the tree!
At present moment we have idea of what criteria will be applied to form any of these committees. None the less each Director may have in mind his/her format for filling the positions. At very least expressions of interest should be called for and a culling process implemented by each of the directors to form each committee.
Having said all that though there are still 2 more directors positions to be filled. Again expressions of interest should be called for and then an elimination process applied. I fear we are just going to be told who those directors are and who is on each committee by application of the Cronyism Method.
9.2 so the board will appoint committee members, based on what the states put forward to them? so the states should call for nominations from within their state and then put forward their candidate, will they? it also eludes to the possibility a committee member can come from same state as another this does not allow for equal representation from each state then does it? the real question is what I have been saying all along WILL the process of nominating and electing be OPEN and transparent and require each candidate to also have some skills for the committee they are nominating for?
Any idea of a timeline for this to occur? ie at the handover or sometime afterwards?
Hello gentlemen, I will, albeit obliquely, partly answer your questions.
Firstly, no Peter, it is not a "last minute slap togethered poorly written new constitution hastily prepared by the old crew ..." it was close to 100% of what I largely wrote that was approved between 2006 and 2008, but I think you knew that.
The NKC and I went backwards and forwards over the committee clause for all that 2 years because views on the NKC changed. The clause as approved, is supposed to be simple and flexible. It is written very much to encourage nomination of interstate personnel if there is someone you think is a better candidate than anyone who might be happy to accept nomination from 'home'. Also, the small states, particularly NT, do not to have to find someone from a small pool of karters if they dont want to. And if you have some good personnel being put up, you might think there's no point adding another person just for the sake of it because state representation and parochiality play no part in these committees; the only bloke with a 'real' vote, is the board member who chairs the committee and goes back to the board with the committee's work.
And before someone points it out, ignore the open letter to karters because things have not happened as described.
I dont know when the committees will be established; I expect after the board puts the strategic plan together. I would hope the plan is on board by 1 September, but it doesnt matter if it isn't except that it would be nice to know in September, if there will be rule changes coming for 2014. You would expect that major changes, like scything half the classes out will happen over time like the moratorium Paul Hewitt and I have been espousing for about 10 years.
The personnel on the committees, in my view, are not likely to include any of the current NKC, simply because of nature of the committees:- an admin committee, a finance committee, a competition committee, a tech committee and last, but most importantly, a marketing and promotion committee.
By their nature, admin and finance will be pithy stuff and unlikely to attract nominations other than from people in those sorts of businesses or professions. When the original 2003 working party put the first iteration of the committee clause up, they made the very valid point that someone not 'qualified' going to a dedicated function committee meeting would be very uncomfortable and unlikely to stay.
So I think the board will tell the states they are ready for the states to make nominations and they will outline the skills sets. Then the states will canvas for nominations and I don't think their hierarchies will take the job lightly. There may well be discussions between states. That would be sensible, in fact.
Ultimately, the board will make appointments to the committees and just because your name goes forward, doesn't mean the board will appoint you. On the other hand, getting to the bottom of CMS might need a special admin crew appointed for a time alongside/as part of the admin committee. It might need someone from finance involved too.
At the end of the day, it is all designed to let everything come together simply and without fetters and constraints. I'm pretty confident that it will.
Graeme are you in a position to able to give us your thoughts on the structure as it presently stands. During this transition when the 5 Directors have been appointed what is exactly their roles until September and given the Company extract indicates that we have listed 3 Directors of AKA Ltd (one of which was removed from his elected position as Treasurer) and a Company Secretary who holds the responsibilities of the organization?
Are we operating under the constitution of the AKA Inc or AKA Ltd given the new constitution was registered in August 2012?
Peter and Neville,
We are not in transition according to the motions that were passed. I wanted the NKC shelved and wrote that into the motions but as usual, what was put for voting by the members was a sanitised version. Even if there was a case for allowing the NKC to govern until changeover, surely the members or NKC should have made that decision, instead, someone or some people, all of whom are part of the problem in the AKA, not part of the solution, steered the program for their own result.
Anyway, as things stand, it is same old, same bad old until 1 September. The new company has no power or authority or say as regards AKA workings and has no money or even members, just the temporary directors, including the fellow who may have been sacked as Treasurer of the AKA, but that has nothing to with, and does not affect his position at AKA Ltd.
I would say, that with committee conferences coming up and more NKC meetings planned, the board is not in charge and the old adage that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, applies.
Peter, you said:-
... but they cannot make decisions like " creating a new board position " without consulting the 3 temporary board members and the company secretary first. Anything to do with AKA Ltd must follow the proceedures laid down in the new constitution"
No, they have no say regarding AKA Ltd whatsoever. Anything to do with AKA Ltd is for AKA Ltd; no consulting AKA, no notice to AKA, no discussion with AKA, nothing.
Yes, anything AKA Ltd is as per the AKA Ltd constitution because that is the one and only set of rules existing in AKA Ltd at this point.
Actually, I am not aware that any changes were made in the constitution that did not come through me so I think you may be doing Mr. Denton a disservice there. The governance sub-committee did change the motions that were put to the members for approval of the move to the new constitution as part of incorporating as a company limited by guarantee.
John McCleverty was the prime mover of getting the best management practice model back on the national agenda after he was re-elected as Queensland NKC delegate in 2011. He had the unenviable task of correcting all the lies and misleading commentary that was virtually indoctrinated in the NKC by the opponents of BMP after I said enough is enough in 2008. His interview in Kart Oz was a gem and the later series Ed Hauswirth did, demonstrating the failings of the current AKA structure, seemed to strike a chord in the NKC.
Comments from the NKC, all very valid and good as far as I'm concerned, came back to me over the course of 4 or 5 NKC meetings and a few fairly minor alterations later, the constitution as it stands now, was accepted.
As you know, I was not at all happy that they didn't do the directors exercise as the constitution requires but thankfully, they seem to have got a good result and apart from the change to the states as voting members, I have no complaints.
As Graeme has not replied to your questions Peter, I will attempt to answer them as best I can.
Directors exercise was to write accurate job descriptions and seek out the best applicants for each directorship. this was carried out by Kissock and become a farce.
Secondly the original constitution held that clubs would have the vote, not the states. At least by advocating the States, the NKC members alone have been eliminated from making decisions on our behalf that we know nothing of. Peter Edgar said:
How did Denton & Co fail to do the directors exercise properly ? By what actions ?
Concerning the change to the states as voting members... what was your alternative ?
Comments11
I have had this concern from day 1 Peter. the real succes will be the make up of thee various sub committees. IF we can get skilled karters onto these committees we will go somewhere get cronies of the past and we go NOWHERE.
The porcess should be clear and transparent you would THINK, but this IS the AKA of old, silent manouvering withy scant regard to their membership as usual.
I will be very disappointed if the current exec fid themselves on the sub committees without a process of nomination and voting, ie self appointed. I will be every disappointed if they do get voted in, we need NEW faces anything else will be a con job. The only saving grace I believe will be the committess will be of 6 people or so so unlikely to be controlled by one person's ego, but this will depend on the selection/nomination processes which gets me back to my original concern.
the silence is WORRYING
I would imagine - and this is only pure speculation - that the new board will put together a process that selects people to fill the various subcommittees. I think the board has met once now (weekend after nationals, I believe), but we've not seen any communication from them yet, I don't think.
You'd expect the process for filling those subcommittees would be near the top of their list.
Let's hope transparency is also near the top of the tree!
At present moment we have idea of what criteria will be applied to form any of these committees. None the less each Director may have in mind his/her format for filling the positions. At very least expressions of interest should be called for and a culling process implemented by each of the directors to form each committee.
Having said all that though there are still 2 more directors positions to be filled. Again expressions of interest should be called for and then an elimination process applied. I fear we are just going to be told who those directors are and who is on each committee by application of the Cronyism Method.
9.2 so the board will appoint committee members, based on what the states put forward to them? so the states should call for nominations from within their state and then put forward their candidate, will they? it also eludes to the possibility a committee member can come from same state as another this does not allow for equal representation from each state then does it? the real question is what I have been saying all along WILL the process of nominating and electing be OPEN and transparent and require each candidate to also have some skills for the committee they are nominating for?
Any idea of a timeline for this to occur? ie at the handover or sometime afterwards?
Hello gentlemen, I will, albeit obliquely, partly answer your questions.
Firstly, no Peter, it is not a "last minute slap togethered poorly written new constitution hastily prepared by the old crew ..." it was close to 100% of what I largely wrote that was approved between 2006 and 2008, but I think you knew that.
The NKC and I went backwards and forwards over the committee clause for all that 2 years because views on the NKC changed. The clause as approved, is supposed to be simple and flexible. It is written very much to encourage nomination of interstate personnel if there is someone you think is a better candidate than anyone who might be happy to accept nomination from 'home'. Also, the small states, particularly NT, do not to have to find someone from a small pool of karters if they dont want to. And if you have some good personnel being put up, you might think there's no point adding another person just for the sake of it because state representation and parochiality play no part in these committees; the only bloke with a 'real' vote, is the board member who chairs the committee and goes back to the board with the committee's work.
And before someone points it out, ignore the open letter to karters because things have not happened as described.
I dont know when the committees will be established; I expect after the board puts the strategic plan together. I would hope the plan is on board by 1 September, but it doesnt matter if it isn't except that it would be nice to know in September, if there will be rule changes coming for 2014. You would expect that major changes, like scything half the classes out will happen over time like the moratorium Paul Hewitt and I have been espousing for about 10 years.
The personnel on the committees, in my view, are not likely to include any of the current NKC, simply because of nature of the committees:- an admin committee, a finance committee, a competition committee, a tech committee and last, but most importantly, a marketing and promotion committee.
By their nature, admin and finance will be pithy stuff and unlikely to attract nominations other than from people in those sorts of businesses or professions. When the original 2003 working party put the first iteration of the committee clause up, they made the very valid point that someone not 'qualified' going to a dedicated function committee meeting would be very uncomfortable and unlikely to stay.
So I think the board will tell the states they are ready for the states to make nominations and they will outline the skills sets. Then the states will canvas for nominations and I don't think their hierarchies will take the job lightly. There may well be discussions between states. That would be sensible, in fact.
Ultimately, the board will make appointments to the committees and just because your name goes forward, doesn't mean the board will appoint you. On the other hand, getting to the bottom of CMS might need a special admin crew appointed for a time alongside/as part of the admin committee. It might need someone from finance involved too.
At the end of the day, it is all designed to let everything come together simply and without fetters and constraints. I'm pretty confident that it will.
Graeme are you in a position to able to give us your thoughts on the structure as it presently stands. During this transition when the 5 Directors have been appointed what is exactly their roles until September and given the Company extract indicates that we have listed 3 Directors of AKA Ltd (one of which was removed from his elected position as Treasurer) and a Company Secretary who holds the responsibilities of the organization?
Are we operating under the constitution of the AKA Inc or AKA Ltd given the new constitution was registered in August 2012?
Peter and Neville,
We are not in transition according to the motions that were passed. I wanted the NKC shelved and wrote that into the motions but as usual, what was put for voting by the members was a sanitised version. Even if there was a case for allowing the NKC to govern until changeover, surely the members or NKC should have made that decision, instead, someone or some people, all of whom are part of the problem in the AKA, not part of the solution, steered the program for their own result.
Anyway, as things stand, it is same old, same bad old until 1 September. The new company has no power or authority or say as regards AKA workings and has no money or even members, just the temporary directors, including the fellow who may have been sacked as Treasurer of the AKA, but that has nothing to with, and does not affect his position at AKA Ltd.
I would say, that with committee conferences coming up and more NKC meetings planned, the board is not in charge and the old adage that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, applies.
Peter, you said:-
... but they cannot make decisions like " creating a new board position " without consulting the 3 temporary board members and the company secretary first. Anything to do with AKA Ltd must follow the proceedures laid down in the new constitution"
No, they have no say regarding AKA Ltd whatsoever. Anything to do with AKA Ltd is for AKA Ltd; no consulting AKA, no notice to AKA, no discussion with AKA, nothing.
Yes, anything AKA Ltd is as per the AKA Ltd constitution because that is the one and only set of rules existing in AKA Ltd at this point.
Actually, I am not aware that any changes were made in the constitution that did not come through me so I think you may be doing Mr. Denton a disservice there. The governance sub-committee did change the motions that were put to the members for approval of the move to the new constitution as part of incorporating as a company limited by guarantee.
John McCleverty was the prime mover of getting the best management practice model back on the national agenda after he was re-elected as Queensland NKC delegate in 2011. He had the unenviable task of correcting all the lies and misleading commentary that was virtually indoctrinated in the NKC by the opponents of BMP after I said enough is enough in 2008. His interview in Kart Oz was a gem and the later series Ed Hauswirth did, demonstrating the failings of the current AKA structure, seemed to strike a chord in the NKC.
Comments from the NKC, all very valid and good as far as I'm concerned, came back to me over the course of 4 or 5 NKC meetings and a few fairly minor alterations later, the constitution as it stands now, was accepted.
As you know, I was not at all happy that they didn't do the directors exercise as the constitution requires but thankfully, they seem to have got a good result and apart from the change to the states as voting members, I have no complaints.
As Graeme has not replied to your questions Peter, I will attempt to answer them as best I can.
Directors exercise was to write accurate job descriptions and seek out the best applicants for each directorship. this was carried out by Kissock and become a farce.
Secondly the original constitution held that clubs would have the vote, not the states. At least by advocating the States, the NKC members alone have been eliminated from making decisions on our behalf that we know nothing of. Peter Edgar said:
How did Denton & Co fail to do the directors exercise properly ? By what actions ?
Concerning the change to the states as voting members... what was your alternative ?