Some talk of a healing process – a good thought. But the latest news that the Ethics Committee does have the authority to investigate set out in the Ethics Code whilst clearly stating in the AAW members area that it is not an investigatory group, just beggars belief. As I have said on previous postings how can an Ethics Committee work if it doesn’t investigate? We have some way to go before healing. I would like an explanation from the Ethic Committee Chair.
Is it Conspiracy or Cock-up? Infact it doesn’t matter, if it’s conspiracy we have a bent ‘cop’ if its cock-up we have an ineffective ‘cop’. Either way the organisation is not effectively policed and this to me is more than half the problem – we have Directors doing what they want when they want, advisors and committee members speaking for the Board or committee, the use and attempted use of exclusion clauses all highly irregular in a well run organisation. Act like kids – and this is what has been happening - then you need to be treated like kids and disciplined; which is the role of the Ethics Committee, but unfortunately not as it stands.
Moving on to healing - taking an overview the other major problem that I see is communication or should I say the lack of it. The 21 June issue was caused by a lack of communication ie the motion was not on the agenda; probably the most important decision that Board will ever make and 30 per cent of the Board were not included in the loop. Not surprisingly some of the 30% felt bounced and reacted accordingly. I see the same happening with the Bylaws re-write we will have a complete package dropped on the table at the end of the work to vote on, take it or leave it, and again we will get a reaction from some quarter, regardless of the quality of the revision.
It is human nature to be wary of change, particularly in large doses. The change process needs to be managed and it simply is not being managed – by attempting to be drive through change as in 21 June issue you will get reaction, there are some good minds and a wealth of experience in the general membership as we have seen, this needs to be respected otherwise it bites.
Can I suggest two simple new ground rules that may help:
1. Only Board/Committee Chairs speak for the Board/committee. ( Moderators you may want to consider adding this to a Sticky)
2. Board/Committee Chairs need to ‘roll the wicket’ in UK terms ie prepare the ground; eg the Bylaw re-write Chair would be giving out progress reports on what has been agreed to date such as the method of voting, acceptance criteria, revision to Bylaw X and what cannot be included and why.
Is it Conspiracy or Cock-up? Infact it doesn’t matter, if it’s conspiracy we have a bent ‘cop’ if its cock-up we have an ineffective ‘cop’. Either way the organisation is not effectively policed and this to me is more than half the problem – we have Directors doing what they want when they want, advisors and committee members speaking for the Board or committee, the use and attempted use of exclusion clauses all highly irregular in a well run organisation. Act like kids – and this is what has been happening - then you need to be treated like kids and disciplined; which is the role of the Ethics Committee, but unfortunately not as it stands.
Moving on to healing - taking an overview the other major problem that I see is communication or should I say the lack of it. The 21 June issue was caused by a lack of communication ie the motion was not on the agenda; probably the most important decision that Board will ever make and 30 per cent of the Board were not included in the loop. Not surprisingly some of the 30% felt bounced and reacted accordingly. I see the same happening with the Bylaws re-write we will have a complete package dropped on the table at the end of the work to vote on, take it or leave it, and again we will get a reaction from some quarter, regardless of the quality of the revision.
It is human nature to be wary of change, particularly in large doses. The change process needs to be managed and it simply is not being managed – by attempting to be drive through change as in 21 June issue you will get reaction, there are some good minds and a wealth of experience in the general membership as we have seen, this needs to be respected otherwise it bites.
Can I suggest two simple new ground rules that may help:
1. Only Board/Committee Chairs speak for the Board/committee. ( Moderators you may want to consider adding this to a Sticky)
2. Board/Committee Chairs need to ‘roll the wicket’ in UK terms ie prepare the ground; eg the Bylaw re-write Chair would be giving out progress reports on what has been agreed to date such as the method of voting, acceptance criteria, revision to Bylaw X and what cannot be included and why.
Last edited: