An Open Letter To Archery Victoria Members

[DavidA]

As many of you may have heard I am running for President of Archery
Victoria this year with the election on the 25th of August.
Over the last few years I have talked with many members from around
Archery Victoria who feel they want a change. They want a AV
committee that looks after all aspects of the game and helps grow the
sport in a positive fashion. They want an AV committee that is not
relying on all decisions and all questions flowing through one person.
My objectives for Archery Victoria are:
. Improve the communication between the clubs and the AV committee.
Take out the need for everything to pass through one person.
. Give more flexibility to the clubs to run tournaments how they want
to run them.
. Repair the relasionship between Archery Victoria and Archery Australia
. Investigate ways of working with 3DAAA and ABA in Victoria to
promote more entries to tournaments.
. Give the power back to the clubs, it's the clubs that should
dictate policy and not the AV executive.


To help make this happen I have a great team around me who share this
vision and wish to see positive change for Archery in Victoria.
To help make this happen we need all the clubs to help us out and
support us in this election.

Regards

David Anear

[Ed]

Who else is in your team, David?
What's the current AV/AA relationship problem?

[DavidA]

Sorry Ed, I was away doing a repair to my recurve handle.

My Support team includes:-

Felicity Brown - Tresurer. For the first time in a while AV will have an
active treasurer again
James Park - Members Rep. Jim will bring his extensive experience to AV.
Jason Goss - Coaching Admin.
These people joined with the existing committee I feel gives us the
best grounding to build and start moving AV forward again.
For any organization to grow and continue to build its strength it
needs to move with the times and adjust to it's member's needs.
What we don't need is more of the same, even if that was important in the
past, we need to move forward, help the clubs expand and grow, and ensure
our members enjoy their archery to the maximum extent.

One of AV's weaknesses is that we do not follow the trends of AA and
FITA and often take many many years to catch up. A prime example is
that this was the first year we shot the FITA 1 indoor at our state
indoor, yet the inner 10 has been shot by FITA and most of the other
Australian States for 10 years.
Another example is that AV won't accept pencil for state records, yet
AA and FITA do.
A major one in administration is that AV refuses to cooperate with AA
on a single National members database. We need to work with AA and
not against them. Only through working together can our sport become even
stronger and united.
We want to make it easier for our members to have fun, and the operation of
AV more transparent.

regards
Davida

[James Park]

I decided to nominate for Members' representative to support David as President.
While AV did need financial repair following the 1997 Nationals and that has been well achieved, we now need to move on. There are many things we can and should do to make our archery more fun and interesting for all our members, and David has the ideas and experience to do just that.
David will have a very enthusiastic group of supporters, who will be strongly interested in all of our members.

[Ed]

I have no problems with this at all. Anyone with an ounce of financial nous could have rectified AV's financial problems after 1997 within a couple of years.
What I strenuously objected to as President of WCA was the misrepresentation of my requests at an AV meeting where, for the first time(?), the Minutes were lost and it was then claimed that the Special Meeting I had requested was for another purpose altogether! I fully support David's thrust that the Clubs should control the agenda. How much is in AV coffers and what is the intended use of these funds?
Tranparency - this would be really novel at AV level!

[James Park]

I am only interested in being on the AV executive if David is President. Should David not be elected I plan to withdraw my nomination. I understand several others are of similar opinion.
I do not want to be on the committee if all we do is more of the same - I want to see us do things that add more value for our members and involve them in more activities and more fun.

[DavidA]

Its come to my attention that someone is spreading the rumor that AV under my Presidency will spend all AV's money. This is not true.
It is very difficult to reassure people, but we have no great spending plans.
We do not have access to the current financial status of AV and will not get those until the AGM.
All expenditure outside normal administration costs has to be approved by the Executive.
All expenditure will be made in a open and transparent manner and only for the betterment of archery in Victoria.
I have been involved an Archery for 40 years and Jim Park even longer and we are not about going on spending spree's, but we do need to look at upgrading communications between clubs, AV and AA.
Doug is promising 'More of the same' which in our book is stagnation and control of everything by Doug.
We are interested in the growth of Archery in Victoria and returning control of AV back to the clubs with a open and accountable Executive.
The Presidents Job is to lead the Executive team but not to control everthing or make all decisions. This is why you have an Executive.

David Anear

[paulrb]

Good luck tomorrow night. A number of people a counting on you bid being successful.

[Hannah]

Good luck tomorrow night. A number of people a counting on you bid being successful.

Ditto that :)

[primal]

Ditto that :)
ditto again :)

[Mervwho]

It is about time the Organization got some leadership and some forward directional thinking. You might find more people returning. Good luck.

[Kerrie W]

Good luck tonight David...

[STRINGWALKER]

From little things big things grow...Archery all over Australia needs forward thinking people.
David I wish you luck.

[Sten]

ditto again :)

Third ditto =)

[Scarecrow_mp7]

President of archery? and youre a begginner on this site?
keep up the high hopes mate!:)

[dbjac]

when does the meeting conclude? must be getting close???
Marcus, have you heard anything yet?

[Leo]

I gather AV is doomed to nothing but more of the same for the forseeable future. :(

[Clare Barnes]

Does that mean that DavidA didn't win?

If so I hope that AV is able to change a few things for the benefit of its archers despite this result.

[paulrb]

President of archery? and you're a begginner on this site?
keep up the high hopes mate!:)


Ummmm not quite.

I am the newbe and so are you I presume. :confused:

David has been around for a very long time....... and is well respected amongst the Victorian Archery community.

If you read the entire thread, you would know he is going for AV president and has lots of support......

I just hope he gets it!!


Paul R

[James Park]

I understand that David lost by 1 vote. Looks like more of the same for the next two years.

[paulrb]

I understand that David lost by 1 vote. Looks like more of the same for the next two years.


Bugger!!

1 vote equals 1 club...... out of ??

hmmm :(

[Eberbachl]

Oh crap.

That is a tragedy :(

[CMB50]

It's not a tradgedy - it's a disgrace.

Glad I'm not involved with AV anymore as it looks like the some clubs are plagued with complacency and content with mediocrity.

AV had an excellent opportunity to allow fresh new blood into the mix and some clubs (not all) have allowed that opportunity to pass them by.

Jim, David and the rest of the team offered a great opportunity for Archery in Victoria.

Cameron Brewer

BTW- This isn't a comment based on my bias. I'd sooner see the Board of Directors from either One.Tel or HIH in charge of AV than the current situation.

[DavidA]

Well I did not get in, so we have more of the same for next 2 years with no plans and one man telling every one how he thinks it should be run.
I would like thank everone who offered their support but unfortunatly too few clubs arrived to vote

Kind Regards
David Anear

[Leo]

Well I did not get in, so we have more of the same for next 2 years with no plans and one man telling every one how he thinks it should be run.
Wrong words there ...

"how it will be run" is what you meant.

[paulrb]

I would like thank everone who offered their support but unfortunatly too few clubs arrived to vote

Kind Regards
David Anear[/QUOTE]


Weren't several proxies declared invalid, where others weren't. Specifically where people asked to vote in favor of David's ticket were told they could not. If so, what was the basis for that decision and will is withstand scrutiny??

Paul R

[Zoe]

It's not a tradgedy - it's a disgrace.



When people are forced to make a decision between two alternatives the status quo will always have the advantage, so perhaps the result wasn’t so surprising? What would be much more disappointing than the actual result would be if nothing changed. Given the closeness of the result hopefully the admin will be mindful of the current disquiet with the way things are presently run, and be more responsive to what the archers want and the way in which things could be improved. I thought David’s approach of using something like AF to communicate more widely with the people he was seeking to represent was commendable, and something I’d certainly never experienced as an AV member (I know AF does not reach the majority of archers, but it does provide a platform for genuine debate and discussion).
Despite this result I think Fita archery in Victoria will remain great because of the archers who are prepared to try something new, push boundaries and laugh in the face of needless and mindless bureaucracy (I recall the popularity of ‘unendorsed’ events when I was there). To put a really positive spin on things, I reckon such a state of affairs can even be a creative catalyst for disenfranchised members.
Much as it might suck, not all is lost.

[Marcus]

Despite this result I think Fita archery in Victoria will remain great because of the archers who are prepared to try something new, push boundaries and laugh in the face of needless and mindless bureaucracy
And I have absolutely no enthusiasm to do so. Looks like Archers in Victoria would prefer to shoot the odd tournament here and there with EVERYONE getting medals and state tournaments where clubs are forced to lose money because someone didn't like the outfits worn.
Clubs are pleased to have their formats dictated to them without given options, even if it means double the work for them.
The club presidents have spoken, enjoy your AV.

There is no longer a State Coaching Administrator so I assume no more state team trials till then.
We will still run the QRE's for now, (ie so the programmed FITAs will still occur, but won't be used for state team trials)


Gee, I feel like I'm living in Florida during a US election.

[dbjac]

Well i have to say, i am dissappointed in my clubs decision.
I am sure that if more club members had known of the election, and the people running, and expressed their opinions, the democratic decision-- and therefore our club's vote, would have been different.

I appologise to the rest of victoria for our clubs decision, after all, we could have altered the result.

[paulrb]

The club presidents have spoken, enjoy your AV.



I am not so sure Marcus

I have been following this one with interest.

How many clubs were unrepresented and who was denied the chance to vote or have their proxy counted.

i would like an answer to that first. I know how Sherbrooke voted, in favour of David's ticket. I have been told that some proxies were rejected and others counted, tipping the balance of the vote.

Given the strength of feeling about this issue, it need not end here.

Determine if the chair's decision on voting procedure was made according to standing orders, challenge the decision if it wasn't.

Put in a no confidence motion... hold a special general meeting.... etc etc, there are things that can be done if there is a will.

I would be intersted in a straw poll of club as to who was/is in favour of change.

Paul R

[Hannah]

I am not so sure Marcus

I have been following this one with interest.

How many clubs were unrepresented and who was denied the chance to vote or have their proxy counted.

i would like an answer to that first. I know how Sherbrooke voted, in favour of David's ticket. I have been told that some proxies were rejected and others counted, tipping the balance of the vote.

Given the strength of feeling about this issue, it need not end here.

Determine if the chair's decision on voting procedure was made according to standing orders, challenge the decision if it wasn't.

Put in a no confidence motion... hold a special general meeting.... etc etc, there are things that can be done if there is a will.

I would be intersted in a straw poll of club as to who was/is in favour of change.

Paul R

Whilst I very much agree with what has been said, I also wonder if pushing the issue would create further dissent?? Having said that, if underhanded tactics were used then seeking alternative avenues is definitely an option!!

I too would have liked to have seen David as the AV President...and sure as hell hope that he goes for it again in two years time.

[gossy]

Hi all can any one tell me the resaults of the AV AGM who won there nominated positions?
It was hard to make the meeting from Sweden

[Mark M]

Well I was hoping David would get the top job but as they say **** happens another couple of years complacency.

[James Park]

Yes, very disappointing. David would be an excellent President and would lead us to much better things.
I agree with Marcus, a lot of that will now be lost.
We very definitely needed a change.
However, as usual, the clubs and members get what they deserve from not taking an interest in it.

[REIDY]

Well, this issue has certainly sirred up some emotion and to be frank I am not sure whether to try to distance myself from it or add to it. I deliberately refrained from commenting on the forum last night while I thought things through and yet still this morning I am still uncomfortable about the result. Not necessarily because one person one won the vote and the other did not but because I still don't know what the hell happened.

For those who weren't there, lots of discussion occurred on who could & who couldn't vote and what role proxy votes played in the whole process. After the vote we ended with a tie and after a bit more 'discussion', bingo we have a winner. I still don't know where that came from.

From what I saw, there were 10 clubs not there and at least a few of the AV committee. Are any of these people elligible to vote or to use proxies? Did they in fact use them? Did they actually get copies of the official proxy form anyway?

I don't know who voted and who didn't, who should have and who shouldn't have and I don't even know the final numbers. I think that with the vote so close and so many questions still unanswered we need to have the result 'audited' in some way to at least provide peace of mind. I don't know how this can be done though.

No, for me there are too many questions still unanswered.

Pete

[ColinC]

President; Doug
Vice President: Peter
Tournament Director: nil
Treasurer: nil
Members Rep: nil
Judges Rep: Merv
Junior Rep: Eric

When I got home and thought through the whole episode, I decided
that, I would rather put my 100% into being the Club Preident of YB
instead. So cosequently I resigned my position as Tournament
Director, to Doug via email.

I thought the whole night...was a dark day for AV. Where they go
now. I don't know

[paulrb]

From what I saw, there were 10 clubs not there and at least a few of the AV committee. Are any of these people elligible to vote or to use proxies? Did they in fact use them? Did they actually get copies of the official proxy form anyway?
Pete

So was the meeting corate... (had enough member participants to be a valid meeting)

I think someone who knows AV well - like Jim Park or David A needs to looking into a little more.....

with so many people pissed off.......... how can the new leadership 'team' be representative

[Hannah]

I totally agree with Paul here...I would be very interested in things being checked out. This doesn't seem right on a whole lot of levels and as Reidy pointed out if those present don't know what the hell happened then how the hell can the rest of the AV members who were not there be satisfied??

Is it possible to get a copy of the constitution? Is this another case of someone in power doing whatever they can to stay in power? This really stinks and I agree with CMB50 that it really does sound like it is a disgrace - a disgrace to the representation of the archery community - especially because it does not sound like the voting procedure was above board.

[Artemis]

Is it possible to get a copy of the constitution?

AV constitution can be downloaded from the Archery Victoria site:
http://www.archeryvictoria.asn.au/documents.php

I am sure that the minutes of this meeting will be available soon and we will then know:

Which clubs were represented by their presidents;
Which clubs were represented by valid proxies (financial members of the same club);
Which clubs were represented by invalid proxies (not financial members of the same club) and were permitted to vote;
Which clubs were represented by invalid proxies (not financial members of the same club) and were NOT permitted to vote.

My reading of the constitution is that only Councillors may vote and by definition Councillors are the club presidents/proxies.

So if the vote was decided by the incumbent president exercising a verbal proxy of the absent vice-president (which is what I heard - but again it would be nice to see the minutes to confirm that) then the ballot was probably unconstitutional.

[Louis Rich]

They were talking about this at my club today and were saying that the vote was tied and then decided to use the Vice President's proxy vote even though his club had already voted.
Apparently when they were arguing over proxy votes the President said "Well the constitution is wrong". :rolleyes:

I've never met the candidates in question, but this sounds like a debacle to me. Why did the clubs present let it happen?

Question is will the clubs do something about it?

[PeterBennett]

My name is Peter Bennett and I represent the members of Archery Victoria as Vice President.
Last night I did put in a proxy vote as per the constitution because I am very ill at the moment and am unable to walk properly. After the votes were counted the scrutineers were informed that mine had not been as some were not entered as per the constitution rules. When my vote was counted it was deemed that Doug Devlin was elected as President.
Over the past few weeks I have seen a lot of posts on this site about how bad AV is, I have chosen not to lower myself to mudslinging, but enough is enough. We have been called a bad executive with 1 person running it all. well this is not true. The facts are that over the past few years our membership has risen from about 400 to 500 members to between 800 - 900 members, during this time our membership fees have dropped from $40.00 PA to $20.00 PA with a chance to drop them even further, not many associations can claim that. As to us being draconian and running everything, AV is run by a board of club Presidents and Reps, if they think that something is good for the clubs they vote for it, if they don't like it they vote against it and it is then up to the executive to see that what has been voted in happens to the best of our ability. As per any group of people, opinions differ in what is good and bad for anything, but rather than some have said I believe this is healthy rather than a dark day for archery in Victoria.

Yes I voted for Doug as I believe he is doing his best for this sport and this State, because when he was first voted in Archery Victoria was in dire straights financially with debts of over $30,000.00 following bad financial decisions by the previous board. Since Doug has been President this has changed around to where AV has $100,000.00 in a term account which earns the equivalent of another 250 members per annum in interest earned for the members. This is one of the main reasons we have been able to drop fees so much in such a short time and still keep everything running.

As you can see by the previous postings not everyone is happy with the status quo, So whats new, if everyone was happy then we would be stagnant, an association can only grow with ideas and support, but if the archers in general don't like the way things are then it is up to them try to get it changed, and that is what happened at last nights AGM.

This does not mean that if the clubs do not support their ideas or leadership that they have the right to attack them on sites like this. I am a great believer that the Archery Forum is a good thing for archery, but I would not attack someone like that in this venue, and like I have said until now have held my tongue, but I think some of the things said here need a reply, and so have had my say.

If you want to have a go at me feel free to do so, but also have the guts to do so to my face

Thankyou

Peter

[paulrb]

Apparently when they were arguing over proxy votes the President said "Well the constitution is wrong". :rolleyes:

, but this sounds like a debacle to me.

Question is will the clubs do something about it?

This is a perfect example of why so many people want change. AV has become an autocratic body with little or no transparacy nor few possibilities for growth or innovation.

I am fairly new to archery but have quickly come to understand that there are problems with AV management. such as would have the current committee make up a mechanism for ensuring that the result was in their favour.

:eek: I propose that all concerned people communicate off list and get together to come up with an appropriate response. I for one am not happy to let this matter rest. Anyone who wishes to can PM me please do so and pehaps a group of us can work have the matter investigated and another vote held.


Paul....

[PeterBennett]

Paul

As you say you are new to Archery and yet you can say that the current executive have "made up a mechanism to ensure the result was in their favor", I beg your pardon but are you saying that I helped do something illegal or something which may bring archery into disrepute. If you are then you and I have a problem, How the hell you can sit their without knowing anything about the current situation other than what is written on this forum staggers me. If you do not like a result from the elections then get off your butt and do something about it, but don't ever say that something I have voluteered for for a lot of years now is crooked. I am extremely offended by this as I have served both my club and Archery Victoria now for many years.

Before you make such an insulting statement, get all the facts, not just those handed out willy nilly, I am well known to the members at Sherbrooke and all the other clubs in this state and I hope they do not believe that I would "cheat" to get my own way

Peter Bennett
Vice President
Archery Victoria

[Marcus]

I don't believe he is attacking you Peter

[Marcus]

Louis Rich your comments have been deleted, please keep this civil.

[Marcus]

Peter
One thing I have heard is that Twin City voted through Merv and also you were allowed a vote as Vice President.
Is this true? (just want to stop rumours blowing out of proportion)

[Louis Rich]

:rolleyes: :mad:

[James Park]

I agree with Marcus, it is very important that we keep the discussion civil.
I think we now need to accept that the vote was held and won and get on with life.
Sure some may not like the result, but lets try to be positive rather than negative.

[Marcus]

I believe this is healthy rather than a dark day for archery in Victoria.

How is not having 3 out of 5 executive positions good for archery in Victoria Peter?
How is having the treasurer and secretary roles done by the President good for archery in Victoria Peter?

[paulrb]

Paul

As you say you are new to Archery and yet you can say that the current executive have "made up a mechanism to ensure the result was in their favor",
If you do not like a result from the elections then get off your butt and do something about it, but don't ever say that something I have voluteered for for a lot of years now is crooked. ld "cheat" to get my own way

Well Peter,

I have not said you have cheated or acted illegally. Although I am concerned that no-one seems to understand by what mechanism by which the decision was taken to included some proxies and exclude others. You are right I do not know exactly what went on and would have liked to have been there. Only a sick eight week old baby at home prevented me attending.

As for getting off my butt.... Take that is given. Since our last AGM, I am Sherbrooke's rep to AV from now on. I wasn't acting in this role last night because Peter and I agreed that he would handover after last night's meeting. I expect that we will get to know eachother well in the coming months and years.

All I have suggested is that the matter needs to be looked into so that people are satisfied with the result. If there were irregularities, no doubt they will be discovered, if as you say there were none, great. I am simply asking for greater transparency, so that everyone has confidence in the process, this is what many people are asking for. If this means that members of the AV committee choose to publish a statement as to how the tie in voting was broken and which standing orders it related to, I for one would be happy to be silenced and defer to those who know more than I.

I have just chosen to take a pastisan role at this point because in the past 24 hours a number of people have communicated with me (on and off the forum. Please don't assume i have based my posted wholly on what was written here) about this matter and are concerned because how the deciion was reached was not explained and some people were not allowed to exercise proxies that they had been entrusted with. I have many years of experience in committee (at local, state and national levels) and even national political parties. I may be new to AV, but know how these bodies work and know what I am talking about.

Transperancy is all that is wanted. Claims of vote rigging cannot be made when all participants understand how the vote was taken and which standing orders, line in the organisations consitution or even part of the Victorian Associations Incorporation Act, was relied upon for making a determination. This is all that is wanted.

So Peter, I am not accusing you or anyone of the AV committee of misconduct, but I am seeking answers. 'Making up a mechanism' is what occurred as I understand it, although as your previous post explains, it was according to the AV consitution. I am still to be convinced that is wasn't a selective choice, but I have no evidence to support this assumption. I am happy to accept that the use of your proxy was quite legal.

Clearly I was writing my last post at exactly the same time as you wrote yours, and I had not had the opportunity to read your explaination of last night's events when writing it. This does not totally satesfy me, as I know of others denied the opportunity to use proxies given to them, hence my request for people to contact me off the forum and examine the issue further. If as you say, everything was appropriate so be it.

We just want an explaination.

I stand by by statement that there are problems with AV management. The issues are flexibility, transperancy and inclusiveness. Last night's vote is an example of this, as many people left the meeting dissatisfied with the process, not the outcome. This is the thrust of my argument. AV management needs to address this in order to meet the needs of all members, and mitigate against any accusations of being self-serving.


cheers, Paul R:-D

[wakDJ]

during this time our membership fees have dropped from $40.00 PA to $20.00 PA...........

Since Doug has been President this has changed around to where AV has $100,000.00 in a term account which earns the equivalent of another 250 members per annum in interest earned for the members.
If you put it in an account which gets more than 5% interest (compounded anually) you could generate even more money. Some free financial advice from the wakDJ!

[REIDY]

Hi Pete,

I have known you for a long time now and my dealings with you have always been professional as have my dealings with Doug and AV. Please don't take this as a personal attack as it is not mean't to be.

It is true that much has been achieved by the people that you mentioned. It is no doubt that AV would not be in quite the healthy financial situation without such peoples input.

I am not going to get involved with heresay about dishonesty etc and I am not going to become involved in whether one should have won over the other, in fact it would have been easier if the vote had been definative one way or the other. That way we could all accept the descision and get on with it.

The fact of the matter is that I left the meeting feeling a bit 'flat'. It was not the descision but the 2 questions that it left that I am uncomfortable with.

Am I 100% certain that everyone who did vote had the right to? - No

Am I 100% certain that everyone who had the right to vote did? - No

At the end of the day, I am happy to work with Doug as I would have been happy to work with David and as I said, it is only the closeness of the descision that makes me wonder whether it is constitutional.

My concern now is that there a lot of vacant positions on the AV committee which must be filled to avoid instability. Unfortunatley I think we have created division amongst members whereby I think that we will struggle to fill these positions.

That is a shame.

Regards
Pete

[DavidA]

I have been watching this with some interest and have a few things to say.
To Peter Bennett :- I have no problem or have had any with your honesty Peter. You Where sick on the night, and I hope you are better.
The Problem with the Proxy's was as follows. Doug had been collecting Proxy's for his cause by including a pre-filled in form with the package sent to some clubs. We had no access to these forms as they were not on the web site.
On reading the Constitution, Proxy's were mentioned in regards to elections.
(You can download copy of Constitution from AV web site)
On Page 12 under PROCEEDINGS AT MEETINGS subsection 11, 12, 13
which states that Councillors (club Presidents) are the only one's entitled to vote either personally or by Proxy as per Clause 18

Clause 18 (on page 13) states (Quote)
'Each Councillor is entitled to appoint another OF THAT CLUB'S MEMBERS as a proxy by notice given to AV before the time of the meeting in respect of which the proxy was appointed'

As you can see, Proxy's collected by Doug from other Clubs were not valid, as Doug is not a member of their Club.

Exec Members it seams cannot Vote either, as only the Clubs can vote.

There were only two Proxy's that I know of at the meeting and they where from Werribee City Archers, and from Yearing. Both where valid, as AV had been informed and the Proxy's were club members of those clubs.

Doug used a Proxy from you Peter, to Vote himself in.

The Question is therefore. if he is entitled to use your proxy as a Exec member to win the election.
DavidA

[paulrb]

[/QUOTE]Doug used a Proxy from you Peter, to Vote himself in.

The Question is therefore. if he is entitled to use your proxy as a Exec member to win the election.
DavidA[/QUOTE]

I have just read the constitution too and have formed the belief that he cannot, thus the vote was tied or lost.

Also, I believe that when a presidential vote is required, the incumbant steps down, announces that the position is vacant, and opens the floor open for candidates. Thus the president cannot preside over a presidential vote. The vice president takes the chair for the vote.

Alternatively, if the incumbant does not step down (for operational reasons, ie someone is required to be in charge at all times, such as company managers, the prime minister, council mayors, etc) s/he steps out of the chair for the vote and joins the other candidates on the floor, for whatever processes are required. Thus retaining executive powers for the duration of the vote plus during a handover period in a caretake role. Again, another officers (or outside party) assumes the chair for the duration of the vote.

If this did not occur, the vote is also not valid.

Paul R

[Eberbachl]

Based on the above information it would seem that Peter's proxy vote was not valid, and therefore the results are also not valid.

I should think that the matter needs some serious scrutiny.

:rolleyes:

[STRINGWALKER]

One thing you can be sure of in archery "is the general dissatisfaction of archers with State and National Bodies"!
HOWEVER
On the Forum - It may be prudent to start a thread, to list what are the underlying problems in archery. Because unless the problems are aired there is NO way forward!
Once they are out in the open, discussion can take place.
BUT what cross section of the archery population vist AF and is it truly representative?
Any opinions?????????

[Marian]

'I should think that the matter needs some serious scrutiny'

I imagine that AA (and I don't mean Alcoholics Anonymous!!!) is looking at this very closely

[amazonarcher]

I'm not new to archery but new to AGM's. Was creating a split in AV the intention? Whether the vote was valid or not I'm disappointed that adults a lot older than me could act the way they did.

As councillors (All Club presidents) you have had and still have plenty of opportunity, under the constitution, to move motions for making changes and suggestions for the betterment of AV and clubs. From the numbers I worked out in support of David, if the motions voted on after the AGM were valid why were the majority denied.

Stop attacking one person, he is part of a committee. You have had confidence in him for years. What's changed? His philosophy certainly hasn't. Have any of those resigning or withdrawing nominations done the amount work that Doug has in the past? I don't believe so. If they had there would be no problems. The energy expended in back stabbing the current executive could be better used to work together for the betterment of AV and your clubs

Chris

[Marcus]

Have any of those resigning or withdrawing nominations done the amount work that Doug has in the past?
Actually I know very well that those who have withdrawn have done far more for archery than realise.
Doug has not been involved in archery for as long as most of those running have been.

From the numbers I worked out in support of David, if the motions voted on after the AGM were valid why were the majority denied.
Because I am sure the clubs are capable thinking for themselves and don't need to be ordered which way to vote.....well at least some of the clubs.

[Jason.P]

It was my first AGM

I was disappointed to see so few representatives from other clubs at such a crucial meeting.

[Colin]

From the numbers I worked out in support of David, if the motions voted on after the AGM were valid why were the majority denied.
Chris

Hi Chris, I assume that you are referring to the motions that DVA put in. Please do not get David & DVA mixed up.

The motions that we put in came from suggestion for our committee & membership, they would of been passed at a DVA committee meeting before going to AV.

Just because DVA submitted them does not mean that they are Davids Polices & does not mean the David approved of them. In fact as I recall he may of been against one or two.
I am president of DVA & I argued for the motions, this does not mean I even approved of them. At our AGM we voted on all motions on the AV agenda. We supported all but one, regardless of who submitted them.

If clubs do not put in motions, AV will remain the same for ever, we accept if a motion gets rejected and move on, all a motion is, is an Idea, Unfortunately it seem that DVA has a lot of bad Ideas this is why in the past 4 year that I have been involved at DVA of the 30 odd motions that we have submitted only 2 have been passed. Life moves on:D

[tj]

At Least 3 Options For AV

I was there on Friday night for the AV AGM as a humble visitor. What transpired left a bad taste in my mouth, not for what has happened but more in the way it happened and the ensuing discussions that have taken place.

It is important to note that the two teams battling for control both have passion and emotion for what they believe. For the future of the sport it is good to have competition but common sense and democracy must also be winners.

The challenging team stood for reform and for growth and I admire them for their "all or nothing" approach. Whilst the result of a decimated AV executive is bad, the result shows that something is wrong and must be addressed. The flaw in the challenging teams strategy was not creating a budget on how certain things were to be achieved. Because of this rumours were started of plans to empty the AV coffers and while this of course was not true, history now tells us that the challenging team suffered the same fate as John Hewson when he attempted reform.

History also tells us that reform will come and if the incumbent AV President cannot see that the writing is on the wall then AV will have a very poor future indeed.

So why does AV need reform?

The incumbent President stands for fiscal management and of this, he and the team has performed admirably. For those that don't know, Doug took over as AV President when AV had some $30,000 deficit and 300+ members. In 2006 AV has $140,000 surplus and a 1,000+ members. The main thrust of their future plans is to ensure AV stays much as it is. AV is in good shape financially but more of the same will continue to restrict growth.

CONTINUE TO RESTRICT GROWTH? There is no way to accurately determine what has created the growth of Archery in Victoria but I will tell you I do not believe it was from dropping a $40 AV membership to $20 as the incumbent President will attest to. IMHO, having spent the last two years of my return to the sport and having a lot of exposure to coaching courses that it is the Club Coaches that spend their unselfish time teaching beginners the fine art of our Sport that primarily deserve our praise and thanks.

WHY ARE WE GETTING SO MANY BEGINNERS? Is it the amount of advertising and support given by AV into newspapers, shopping centres, coaching programs? NO. As most people that have exposure to beginners will attest to it is things like "The Lord Of The Rings" movies that have encouraged people to try archery and it is the club coaches that encourage them to join our Sport. Yes, having a $20 annual fee is good but it is not the driving force.

I nearly fell off my chair at the meeting when it was announced that AV had received $15,000 in Grants from the State Government and it was put into the bank to earn interest. Surely this money could be earmarked for a "Come And Try" Program throughout the Metropolitan area at no cost to the AV Membership.

As for the previous threads regarding the meeting I must say it was very strange. You have probably read that there were a number of Postal Proxy Votes that was contested by the challenging team as to their validity. Having spent last night reading the Constitution the challenging team was 100% correct in not allowing these votes to be used.

The problem lay with the Executive and Chair not understanding the Constitution but I have empathy for them as the scenario that followed would not reasonably have been anticipated. The first count was wrong (it was a tie) because a legal Proxy vote had not been counted. In hindsight what should have happened is that the Constitution calls for the Chair to have the casting vote, I would not liked to have been the Chair at that time. Hbowever, a recount was done with the valid Proxy included and Doug Devlin took the honours. The problem is a room full of Councillors did not know what happened (I did not find out until 8:00 Sunday night after talking to several people), hence, the bad taste left in everyone

[paulrb]

I ageee totally to tj, every word of it.

I have nothing to do with David A's ticket yet feel strongly that changes is needed.

tj you have offered a very sensible plan for the future.

I was one thinking about a special gernal meeting, and still think one might be nessesary. If the actions taken by the executive on Friday night [concerning the voting proceesdures) were constitutional then your first option is appropriate, if they weren't I believe the SGM is still nessesary to give certainty (As Reidy put it) that eryone one who voted was entitles to and that everyone who was entitled to vote could do so.

Cheers Paul R

[Hannah]

I am sorry, I still have a problem, as far as I am concerned the meeting was invalid...as has previously been suggested.

a) Proxy forms were not sent to ALL clubs with a minimum of 21 days prior to date of the meeting. This is a requirement as per section 12(3) of AV's constitution.

b) One of the purposes of the AGM is to present the financial records of the previous year and for it to be passed by the committee. My understanding was that this was not done. I also understand that the person who was supposed to do this was ill and was therefore unable to give a verbal report...however, the documentation should still have been there. Not only is this stated in the Constitution (section 12(4)(b)) but also according to Consumer Affairs.

Both of these requirements (where only one is necessary) make the meeting invalid which means that another meeting needs to be held, or the members have a right to complain to Consumer Affairs Victoria, where they will settle it. I am tired of some people not fully understanding all of the potential consequences here. The constitution of AV needs to be read within the context of the body of law that surrounds it within Victoria, which includes (and exceeds) those requirements in the consitution under Remedies (section 30).

BTW - this is not a personal attack on anyone specifically. It just seems to me that with so many people disgruntled that maybe a few more should read the constitution and do something about it.

I love archery and quite frankly this is the sort of stuff that creates bad publicity for the sport if it were to get out. Having said that, I disagree with various others' points of view that feelings about this should not be aired here - what better place to discuss these matters?

PS - the potential consequences of acting unconstitutionally (depending on the circumstances and decision by Consumer Affairs) ranges from fines to dismantling of the organisation. Don't think this is a light issue.

[Hannah]

Oh one more thing. I don't think we should wait 6 months to do anything. If the association is acting in contravention of the constitution something should be done about it now. This would also eradicate the need for the a motion of no confidence...which I don't think should be required until absolutely necessary. I think the association would be better served to get the procedures correct thus avoiding contention at the primary root.

Further, it would give the current executive a chance to prove that they can do it right taking the time to read the constitution and thus avoiding votes attempted to be caste that were invalid, and give the contending group time to organise a financial plan to better their position (though, I have to say, I have not heard of a group having to give this in other associations/club organizations...further, I would argue that this is difficult because they do not have CURRENT financial information).

[Marcus]

I would also like to question the legality of the Vice President being allowed to vote.
Surely it is 1 club 1 vote. Otherwise what is stopping one club obtaining all executive positions and rigging everything.

I was disappointed to see so few representatives from other clubs at such a crucial meeting.
I agree. When I came back into the sport DVA was slammed by AV for not coming to meetings. We were told our opinions didn't matter because we don't attend. We changed that and got involved and still get slammed for it.
We get slammed for submitting motions for things we would like to see improved. We get slammed for saying we don't like some things. We get slammed for sending archers to tournaments and encouraging our members to perform the best they can.
We get slammed because our members are willing to sacrifise their time and money to fill committee roles that no one else would offer to do.
Executive members of AV have told our members our opinion doesn't count because we are from DVA. Yet they happily accept our 30+ entries to their shoots.
DVA runs cheap tournaments to encourage participation, we go to and support as many shoots as we can and help out with other clubs in running their shoots.

No wonder so many clubs in Victoria don't want to be a part of it when this is the thanks you get.

[Mervwho]

History is merely repeating itself Marcus, only last time it happened (before you were born) ABA happened. Isn't it wonderful?

[paulrb]

Hanna and Marcus are thinking the same as me. There are problems and an SGM is needed.

I would agreed to waiting 6 months if everything had been done legally. From what I have read, including Marcus's compelling argument that the executive should not be able to vote,....


I would also like to question the legality of the Vice President being allowed to vote.
Surely it is 1 club 1 vote. Otherwise what is stopping one club obtaining all executive positions and rigging everything.

.... nor were the other agenda items completed thus fulfilling the legal requirements of an AGM, these fact alone require that AV holds an SGM.

So what is needed are 5% or approximately 40 AV members to request an SGM and they must put forward an agenda.

I would have three main agenda items:

(a) set aside the AGM vote or whole AGM - requiring evidence that the process was somehow wrong.

(aa) vote of no confidence in current president even if 'a' not proven. As this still represents many people's beliefs

(b) determine and agree on what are the correct procedures and processes for future votes. Thus an acceptable interpretation of the constitution is agreed on. This means writing standing order (these should be in place)

(c) New vote for president (and other executive) using the accepted processes.

(d) Examine whether any changes have been made to the constitution without the authority of the membership. (as haad been suggested to be)

(e) have a big party

If there has been unlawful practices... seek legal advice

If the current chair remains in power and has altered the constitution..... use this fact as basis for vote of no confidence.

alternatively the failure of the current executive to fulfil their legal requirements (as Marcus has argued here)

Bare in mind that I am no expert, just someone who has spent a lot of time in and on committees. There are likely to be within the membership many other people with greater knowledge of these things, who could examine the issue closely and put it in a more approriate format.


Is this where we are heading??????

[kg]

[QUOTE=Marcus]I would also like to question the legality of the Vice President being allowed to vote.
Surely it is 1 club 1 vote. Otherwise what is stopping one club obtaining all executive positions and rigging everything.



I just want to throw in my two cents' worth on this specific point:
I don't think that the voting was illegal in this way (altho i'm no expert and will happily be proven wrong).

Reading from the constitution:


Section (14) PROCEEDINGS AT MEETINGS

13) The only persons entitled to vote are the Councillors.


Section (4) INTERPRETATION

1) ....COUNCIL means a management forum comprising the Executive Officers and Presidents of member clubs.



... so i *think* i'm right in saying that those entitled to vote at the AGM are the (5) Executive Officers of the club, plus presidents of member clubs (or their proxies, as previously discussed).

Now, obviously 3 exec positions were up for nomination on the night, so the positions of President, Treasurer and Members' Rep (even had they all been present) could NOT vote, as they had already stood down from their position. The positions of Vice President and Secretary (see point below) WERE entitled to vote. I think. And I believe the position of Vice President voted entirely legally by proxy.

To Marcus' point, about the possibility of one club loading up the exec, i don't believe there is any thing to stop this at all, at least not 'constitutionally'. The only thing stopping it would be due process, and having a healthy state society where more people were eager to stand for position.


Now, my question: Who/where is our current Secretary? The position should have been voted on at last year's AGM (as per the constitution Section 11, point 5b.), however the position wasn't put up for nomination. Nor was it this year. Has the position ceased to exist???


Cheers all,
Kirsten

(ps Is there a 'more-read' legal document in Victoria than the AV constitution over the last 36 hours?!? You'd think we'd all be experts by now!! lol)

[Marcus]

Secretary was actually legally held by Colin Chappell. The title was changed to Hon Secretary/Tournament Director.

[tj]

Hi Paul,

1. You can tread on dangerous ground without proof.

2. We need time for the dust to settle and for people to look at the big picture.

3. I believe we need time to allow the original Nominees to re-think their stance and to possibly stand again.

4. As for the legality of a Treasurers Report not being submitted I shall leave that to a more informed authority but IMHO it certainly "seems" to have enough substance to warrant a SGM.

FYI the constitution is a standard legal document full of missing details, however, it reads;

14.13. The only persons entitled to vote are the Councillors.

4.1. Council means a management forum comprising the Executive Officers and Presidents of member clubs.

Councillor means the President of a member club, elected by the members of that club to represent them in all matters pertaining to AV.

16.3. The Executive Officers of AV shall be :-
(a) President.
(b) Vice-President.
(c) Hon Secretary.
(d) Treasurer.
(e) Members Representative.

Ergo, the VP is an Executive Officer. Executive Officers form part of the Council. Only Councillors may vote. The ambiguity comes from "Councillor means the President of a member club", however, common sense and logic would seem to legalise the VP having a vote.

It was suggested that the VP or TCAG voted twice. The answer is no. The VP of AV is also the President of TCAG and therefore can actually cast two votes by wearing "two hats" The first hat has been handed to their AV Delegate in Merv Grinstead and he has voted on behalf of the President of TCAG for many years. The second hat of VP he usually wears at meetings himself but being unable to travel "legally gave a Proxy Form to a paid-up member of his Club" to cast his VP vote. In both circumstances I see this as legal and fair.

The points made by Paul are all valid, however,

a) evidence required - I don't think you will get it - It seemed above board to me just handled poorly, not necessarily illegally.

aa) represents "some" peoples beliefs and if they feel strongly enough then they should stand for election to the Executive. At the end of the day the incumbent President must recognise and accept that a proportion of the Membership requires/requests/demands a different management style with some regard given to the real and meaningful growth of the sport not just fiscal mangement. I still believe the elected President must be given a chance to absorb these feelings and progress. If at the end of a short time frame no noticeable improvements are made in the areas of communication and "management by exception" techniques then by all means remove him.

b) I believe they already exist but getting the AV Council to sit down to "read and understand" the Constitution certainly would not hurt.

c) You can call a SGM at anytime when you have the 5% of Members that wish to do so. You appear to have enough discrepencies in other areas of the meeting without a vote of no confidence that will do no-one any favours. A SGM only needs to have an Agenda and if that Agenda is to call for an anullment of the previous AGM on the basis that procedures for the AGM were not followed or were incomplete, and, that the whole process be started again then I believe that is all you would have to do. You would not have to provide "proof" of anything - much cleaner that way.

d) and onwards. To me the instability caused by any of those "legal" processes would not be worth the trouble or expense.

Regards,

tj

[Ed]

Paradoxically, there have been many potentially positive outcomes from last Friday's meeting.
THE BIG PICTURE is what is critical to the future of archery in Victoria.
What we need is for the leader, whoever that may be, after consultation with the members in an agreed open forum, to paint a canvas of where AV should be over the next 12 months, in 2 year's time and after 5 years.
Where do we need to make improvements?
What are the issues to be resolved?
What funds need to be expended to get there?
Formulate agreed and accepted plans and strategies on HOW we will achieve these.
Good leaders have A VISION for the future and how it may be achieved.
Any leader and potential leader needs to publically commit to this so that those intending to vote know just exactly what is being offered, i.e., to share that vision.
I'm unsure whether this occurred in a structured way in the run-up (over at least a few weeks) to last Friday's election.
For example, did all the clubs know just what David was espousing or just those who read his
open letter on the forum?
If AV has, as has been claimed, $140,000 in the kitty, then I believe it is almost financially immoral to simply keep stashing money away without a definite plan in mind for its use.
For example, one of South Australia's commitments is to subsidise every archer who enters a State event so that the maximum daily cost never exceeds $10.
I've tried to keep out of this debate but just found it too difficult to keep my trap shut!:eek:

[paulrb]

I applaud the posts from kg, tj and Ed. Having a two-letter forum title must result in guru like thoughts and insights.

I am certainly not making claims for illegal behaviour, just expressing that IF is occured, we should act. I am happy to accept that all was above board, if those with greater knowledgege and experience access that it has been.

Regardless, I believe that any SGM does not have to result in a new vote for the executive, as 'tj' and others say the Friday night's may well be correct, but in order for transperancy another vote would help. If another presidential vote occurs once processes are openly discussed and known to all, this will silence much of the criticism, regardless of the outcome. I'd be happy with that, even if the result was the same as Friday's

I believe that things need to change and ideas such as those offered in the three posts from the trio of guru-like participants, are the way forward.

I support an SMG that sets aside Friday night's meeting. One that clarifies all process and gives an acceptable interpretation of the constitution... even if this results in a postal vote of all members as a 'referendum' to change some of the wording to be less ambigious... regardless of which 'camp' this favours.

Then some of the current exec's opponents can take some on the unfilled positions on the AV committee and press for change from within. If the executive then becomes unworkable with no one listening or allowing discenting voices to be heard and/or new ideas to florish, then perhaps a no confidence vote is appropriate after that time.

This is me trying to work out a compromise position that is likely to have broader support and be more benificial for the long term cohesion of AV's membership and leadership, and thus AV as a whole.

I think someone should write to the AV executive and put in a proposal for a SGM with some of the aims expressed in this treat. It should be from a club or group of senior AV members with some clout (not me I am a newbe, and can't clout for ****e [sorry :p) such as two or more club presidents or people who have held AV exec posts in the past.

Perhaps a group of concerned people should request a meeting with the current AV executive to determine which points are contested and whether there are common positions or even a willingness from the executive to address any concerns raised. Thus rendering the needs for an SGM void.

I would be happy to participant and support such a process but believe more senior 'players' need to take a leadership roll.

Your thoughts????


Paul R:-)

[amazonarcher]

I may be slammed again. I wasn't confusing David with DVA, just didn't express myself very well. My point may have been missed, but I'm not going there. I agree with the majority that if the final vote had been explained things would have been a lot different.

That said, my club has recently undergone a major upheaval, things are still being found and handed over. We received a proxy form. It was sent via mail with notification of the meeting and SGM motions. I'm not secretary or president but said I would attend the meetings with the club secretary. I was shown by her all the forms she received in regards to the meeting so I could act as spokesperson for or against the motions. The proxy form was definitely there. Perhaps people should be looking at themselves and how information is passed on.:rolleyes:

[Hannah]

A few things need to be clarified here. The council is different to the councillors (see section 4(1)). If read properly then a councillor (excluding the executive unless they are the president of an archery club...representing the interests of that club which then comprise AV) has the right to vote...not the council - ie the executive.

However, the only time that a member of the executive can vote is when they are chairing the meeting and there is a draw - this is called a casting vote (section 14).

The person chairing the meeting presiding over the election of the council should have been agreed on by those present because at that time technically there was no president/vice-president etc. This should have been put to a vote. As I was not there, I cannot comment on whether this actually happened or not. But don't presume that just because you are on the council entitles this entitles you to vote...at that point there was no council - ie no executive.

[James Park]

How about we all calm down and stop speculating. Otherwise we are engaging in what can readily become quite destructive and devisive, and I don't think that is in anyone's interest.
What is being done: several people are examining the constitution (as officially lodged). That will tell us if there is a problem. If there is a problem we should then go about fixing it (and do so in an appropriate, constructive, manner).

[Marcus]

Just thought it would be fair to link on here a Letter to AV members from Doug Devlin
You can download from the AV website

http://www.archeryvictoria.asn.au/download_doc.php?id=188