Letters from Jacques Cochonnet
W.P.R.T. (Wellington)
Complete Wiki Index (21/06)
North Island:
South Island:
StKildaClub 10
This NZPW is sponsored by:
THURSDAY, MAY 01, 2008
April AGM and Council Meeting Minutes
This is a permanent record of a NZPC Blog posting
On the PNZ website you can find the just published minutes of the April AGM and Council meeting. Does anyone know where I can find copies of the financial report, Ceo's report and council chairman's report, tabled at the above mentioned April AGM and Council meeting?
A letter from Graeme Burnard has been sent to PNZ - you can read it on this PAGE.
You can read a letter from WPA to PNZ on this PAGE.
posted by NZPC Editor (Tom) @ 5:08 PM 28 comments
At 7:08 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Remit 1(a)
A remit was defeated with a vote from the regional delegates. Later that day this was overturned by a change of a vote and the remit passed. Is this legal?
At 10:03 AM, Anonymous said...
Excuse me! How can you change a vote hours later? Surely if a remit is put, discussed and voted on and lost, then that decision stands. The remits were out in plenty of time for delegates to consider and discuss with their members. If the delegate changed her mind, is this a true reflection of the wishes of her members. The Incorporated Societies Association advise me that there is no rule or law regarding this matter. It is up to the individual organisations to reflect the rule in their constitution. The PNZ constitution states in rule 10.6.4 that " A resolution of the National Council is passed if it is agreed to by all Regional Delegates present without dissent, or if a majority of the votes cast on it are in favour of it"
It does not state that a vote can be retaken until a desired result is obtained. PNZ could argue that it "DOESN'T" state you cannot take a revote but having chaired scores of AGMS's in the past, I know that this is simply not ethical or fair. I wonder how many other times this has happened at executive level!
If the delegate didn't understand the remit, then she either didn't do her homework properly or shouldn't be in the position she is in.
I am writing to PNZ requesting that the original vote stands and that the minutes reflect this.
Graeme Burnard
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous said...
Back in 2003 when the PNZ constitution was changed, the vote for the change was taken twice.
When the marathon AGM was held after the national triples at Mt Albert, there was a "majority" for the vote on the night. However under the terms of that constituation, the majority had to be 75% of the club members present. This wasn't the case when the vote was taken - it was something like 60/40 for the change. This was declared a valid vote on the night - but after someone checked the constitution, it was declared invalid and the vote was taken again later that year (I think at the National Singles in Napier??).
So it has happened previously, but not quite in the circumstances described and certainly with an opportunity for people to go back to their clubs to canvas opinions. This is different to a delegate who has been instructed to vote one way, then changing their mind and voting another later in the piece.
And yes the rumour mill is going fill tilt as to how that happened...
-Margret
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous said...
I hope the members that this delegate represents questions her motives and the ramifications of the change, but I suspect they won't. Questionable activity like this makes Croquet look a very attractive alternative but I enjoy Petanque too much to change now. I just don't enjoy the way our leaders do their job.
Graeme Burnard
At 3:36 PM, Anonymous said...
The WPA committee also have concerns about the way business was conducted at the recent AGM. We are drafting a response along the same lines as Graeme's letter. At the very least we want an explanation regarding the process.
Dirk
At 2:51 PM, Anonymous said...
Of course they passed. It would not have mattered if you dropped a bomb on the place and suggested changes they don't care what the players think. Never have never will.
The players said No and you said go get stuffed we will do it our way. Oh to be so bloody blind. One day someone will wake up and smell the coffee. I have recently introduce a good friend to petanque and he can’t believe that Goofey and the the rest of the disney crew are the administrators. Wait, Goofey would probably do a better job. Yes, I am pissed off. To be told in an e-mail that the players have their say by our CEO, and then quite clearly change the result of the vote without going back to them is just bollocks. Oh well, never mined, i will just keep hoping or is that dreaming that one day things may change.
Myles.
At 4:41 PM, Anonymous said...
I have just spoken to Michael Rocks who chaired the meeting, asking him why he allowed the vote to be changed. It appears that PNZ do not have any ruling on this matter. Major corporations and businesses would have standing orders that cover the possibility of someone trying to do this. Michael simply said that Mrs Brock asked, after lunch, that she be able to change her vote and it was allowed. Michael informed me that no-one at the meeting questioned or objected to this decision. This is of concern, to think that other people who had voted were having their decisions reversed as well. I understand the APA had their monthly meeting last week and I wonder if the matter was raised. Have the APA members been correctly represented at the PNZ AGM.
Whether this decision was "legal" or not is only part of the concern I have. Morally and ethically it is just not done. I wonder after the general elction later in the year, if we will be able to have another vote if we do not like the result.
Surely those concerned in requesting and allowing this decision to be made, must have realised there was going to be some reaction to it.
According to the PNZ minutes, Mrs Brock stated she had reconsidered her decision. That is why remits are sent out well in advance of a meeting, so delegates have time to think, discuss and decide on which way they vote and to avoid the farce that has happened at the AGM.
Maybe the APA members should request that they can change their vote so they can elect a new delegate who will represent them efficiently.
Graeme Burnard
At 8:55 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Not one reaction from Auckland!!!
Not one person at the PNZ meeting had a problem with Lorraine changing her vote!!
Why did she change her vote? Was she under duress?
Is this the way we want our game administrated?
Are people happy if meetings at the highest PNZ level are conducted in such an unorthodox fashion?
How will PNZ members come on board with the new initiatives when votes can apparently be changed until a more desirable result is reached.
Is all of this indeed (as Myles points out so well) Disneyland stuff?
Is this the professional approach Victor Nataf spoke about, or did we get it all mixed up in the translation?
Someone told me that what Victor Nataf really said with regards to petanque in New Zealand was this: “Faites la fete, et amusez-vous!”
12:53 PM, Anonymous said...
The Chairman of the Council and the CEO didn't have the balls to say this is not how it is done. Nothing different there.
-Myles.
At 1:13 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Like Myles, I am flabbergasted than no one in that room had a problem with such a blatant irregularity (changing a vote later in the day). At the very least people should have said: “we want it noted down that we are uncomfortable with this (changing a vote later in the day), and we would like to explore the legality and morality of this".
At least these people would have been on record as being awake and alert - not so. -Tom
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. --Martin Luther King
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous said...
So, you think that Michael should at least have registered his opposition, thus covering his back. Maybe so, but remember this request came right out of the blue and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I can tell you that if he had not allowed the change of vote, the exec would have put a proposal to allow it and Michael would have been completely outvoted. Why you think Bryan Wells would/should not have allowed it to proceed I don't understand, as when the original proposal was lost, he stated he would have to reassess his committment to PNZ. Without standing orders at the AGM there was no way Michael could impose any authority over Lorraine's decision to change her vote. By the way, the attitude of the exec to the council has been one of, well, they can pass remits but we won't be taking any action, citing lack of time and personnel - complete arrogance. How about delegating - well, no, that may mean they lose their control, not an option. Michael has been a thorn in the side of the exec, the only person to stand up to them, gather the other council members together and insist on the exec following processes. I believe the exec has their own agenda and they certainly have no intention of letting anyone get in their way. Anyone who does so risks being vilified in personal attacks via email, questioning their committment and support of petanque in NZ.
Liz
At 4:10 PM, Tom said...
Yes, absolutely, "hindsight is a wonderful thing”. I totally agree with this and I would not want to make Michael responsible for not alerting others about the irregularity that took place. There were 7 people who know all there is to know about conducting meetings. Not one of them had an issue with writing down the result of an official vote, and later that day overturn it again.
These 7 people are totally silent and we still have not heard a whisper from the NZ petanque capital, Auckland! I believe a letter to PNZ was drafted in Auckland, but people whimpered out of putting their name under it. What is it like to live in so much fear? I am happy to publish this letter for you and put my name under it - no problem at all.
Without any meaningful protest, things will just fester on as they have. How many more years will we tolerate this present situation within NZ petanque?
At 4:48 PM, Anonymous said...
Very good comments Liz and what you say confirms what a lot of us are thinking. I believe Michael as chairman should have said no, that is not appropriate action to recall the vote but that was his call at the time. maybe he should have called Mr Wells' bluff and let him reasses his commitment to the organisation. It now makes one wonder what Mr Wells might have said to Mrs Brock at lunch to make her take the action she did. It also makes me wonder what he said at his interview for the CEO position and I assume it was Mrs Brock that interviewed him as she did me, along with the secretary and someone from SPARC.
This is just getting more and more sinister and the time surely is coming that we have to take a vote of no confidence in the executive. The problem is getting the members of our sport off their backsides. Whilst we have an exceutive doing what they like and a membership that couldn't give a stuff, what hope do we have. Oh, how i would have liked the chance to run this organisation because I tell you one thing, I certainly wouldn't have put up with the crap we are having to put up with now.
When I hear murmerings of a CEO who sat through an AGM texting, and a CEO who was given funds for a South Island trip that didn't eventuate and a CEO who threatens to reassess his commitment of a vote if it doesn't go the way he wants, a CEO who hasn't visited our club in the last 12 months and we are only a couple of hours drive away, a CEO who doesn't attend the Trans Tasman challenge, a CEO who promies much at the beginning of his term in office and has yet to deliver....... I get very very angry but whats the point!
Graeme Burnard
At 8:50 AM, Anonymous said...
Ok, I know when to say i am wrong. I apologise to Michael as i know now he did object to what was going on. It just confirms to me what has happened with anything the players or the council has said.
People open your eyes and see a common thread here. If it doesn't suit the executive, it will not happen.
Any company I have been involved in would have sacked this executive long ago.
Myles.
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous said...
I have just received a reply to my letter to PNZ. Unfortunately there is a clause at the bottom of the email prohibiting me to copy, disclose or distribute this information to anyone not authorised to see it so I do not want to risk copying it for anyone to do evil things with it.
however, you may get the gist of the letter by my reply below which I am happy to share as I have nothng to be ashamed of or afraid of.
My reply to the secreary reads as such
" This clause in the constitution means that the National Council can do what they like despite the moral and ethical ramifications. I do not believe that anyone present at the meeting would not think that such action at a national meeting was moral or ethical, particularly after the CEO makes a threat such as he allegedly did.
It would be more appropraite for Mrs Brock to tell the general membership of her reasons, not just me".
Obviously these clauses that give the National Council such power need to be reviewed. They are more appropriate in a Mugabe Government rather than a national sports association.
Graeme Burnard
At 4:36 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Yes, we can read between the lines.
I find this line also interesting: “…. prohibiting me to copy, disclose or distribute this information to anyone not authorised to see it.…” What does this mean???
Graeme, it would be useful if you requested some guidance as to what precisely this means. Could PNZ provide you with a list of individuals or groups who are forbidden from seeing the letter. Are paid up members for instance allowed to see the letter? It would be good to have this recorded.
You are right, Mugabe and Myanmar spring to mind. Why so much dishonesty and secrecy within our small petanque world?
At 4:53 PM, Anonymous said...
Tom, I think it is a generic item that goes out with every email but as much as i would like to publish the letter, PNZ could easily get the CEO to threaten me with legal action so best not to tempt them.
Graeme B.
At 9:58 PM, Anonymous said...
The standard clause regarding prohibition is normally found at the bottom of a company email or fax and is designed to cover the situation where a person other than the adressee receives or sees the fax or email. It does not prevent the adressee from doing whatever they want with the email or fax. To prevent an adressee from disclosing any information in an email or fax would require the prior signing by the adressee of a non disclosure agreement. However, you may wish to ask for a simply piece of legal advice just for your peace of mind if you were intending to publish.
Liz
At 8:40 AM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
A vote is in danger of going the “wrong” way. The CEO states that if it does he will have to reconsider his commitment to the organisation. A vote is taken and noted down (it has gone the “wrong” way - it was a “No” vote). A Council member who was one of the two delegates that caused the vote to go the “wrong” way is spoken to during the lunch break. On return to the meeting later in the day this Council member (who was spoken to) requests from the meeting that her vote is changed from “No” to “Yes”. This was granted without anyone blinking an eyelid. The CEO and other Executive members are now happy again and no longer need to threaten their withdrawal of commitment to the organisation. All this is possible under the constitution (this in itself is unbelievable). Could it be that the delegate who was spoken to during lunch was placed under duress from the people who made the threatening ultimatum earlier in the day? Remember, she was under instruction from her large membership in Auckland to cast a “No” vote. Can we all see the picture? Is this the foundation and building block from which we will embark with the new initiatives for 2008 and beyond? -Tom
At 8:58 AM, Anonymous said...
The delegate concerned has offered to contact me to advise why she changed her vote. I would rather she issued a statement explaining to everyone why she did it then we all hear it in her own words.
Still no word from Auckland!
Pathetic!!!
Graeme Burnard
At 9:17 AM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
I have emailed Lorraine this morning:
Hi Lorraine,
What was your reason for changing your vote at the April AGM/Council meeting?
Do you feel that you were under pressure to do so?
Kind regards,
Tom van Bodegraven.
Graeme, I do know that a letter to PNZ was drafted in Auckland but the good people there could not get further, and have apparently abandoned this initiative.
One of the great thinkers of our time, Greek philosopher Plato, has put it this way:
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
--Plato
At 6:00 PM, Anonymous said...
Great quote Tom, a lot of truth in it, but I don't quite think Plato qualifies as "of our time" as he died some 3 centuries before Christ! But still just as relevant a quote today as it was then! (Sorry to be pedantic!)
Simon
At 6:39 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Simon, you are right of course, but... (here is that “but” word again) I do remember Albert Einstein writing about the relativity of time. When did “our time” start? Ho... lets not go there. We must Stay on Topic :-)
At 9:24 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
13/05/08 Unfortunately I have not received an answer to my email questions (May 9) to Lorraine:
“What was your reason for changing your vote at the April AGM/Council meeting?
Do you feel that you were under pressure to do so?”
She may be away of course. Lets hope we get some answers of how this all fits together soon. I just hope this is not a conspiracy of silence. -Tom
At 8:52 PM, Blogger NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
I received a reply from Lorraine. Here is my reply:
Hi Lorraine,
Thanks for your reply.
I have just a couple of points. It is immaterial in my view whether you changed your vote 45 minutes or 4.5 hours after the vote which was noted down. It still reconstitutes a change of vote. A change of vote which was not in accordance with the wishes of the people you represent. So here we have an ethical and constitutional issue.
You say that: "The Auckland clubs do not have a problem with my decision". I am not surprised as we have not heard a whisper from Auckland, and this means to me that everyone is happy about you changing your vote without consulting with the members.
You say: "Now is the time for all the slaggers to put their hands up and nominate themselves for one of the five "board" positions!!." Who are the "slaggers"?. Would you like to see "slaggers" on the board?
You say: "I most definitely was NOT coerced or pressured into changing my vote. The only person I spoke to at the lunch break was David Lippard, another Auckland club member. We discussed the present system and how bad it was." Did you request a change of vote as a result of your lunch time talk with David, or was it some other reason?.
You say: "I felt that many people did not really understand just how the new system would work and that with the right people in the positions things would work far more efficiently and be far better for all in the sport." Who are the "right people" and why did you think that people "did not really understand". If this is the truth, why on earth did you not make an effort in explaining this to your membership? Do you feel that the membership you represent have cognitive processing difficulties.
These will be the spokespeople for their area. They will be elected by Clubs in the region, as per the current process. Regions themselves will determine their boundaries, i.e. what Clubs they include. Regional reps will have the right to attend and speak at Board meetings, but not to vote. They must have a written mandate to show what clubs they have the authority to speak on behalf of, when attending Board meetings or otherwise communicating with the Board.”
Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I will leave it here as the Auckland clubs have not got a problem with your decision. Looks like I have got it all wrong once again.
Cheers, Tom.
At 12:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Tom, you can't win if the majority are quite happy for people to do what they like despite any ethical or moral question.
It doesn't appear that anyone apart from myself has contacted PNZ with their disapproval. I would have thought some of the clubs would have objected to the process that took place, especially some of the Auckland clubs. They obviously have a policy where they say, this is the way we want you to vote but if you vote any other way thats OK too.
It is the same with team selection. Last year we are told this is the way we will now select our world teams, players put their teams together, practiced, entered the tournaments, qualified and then are told well actually we aren't going to send a team this year and the majority just sit there like clowns at a fair shaking their heads from side to side and doing nothing else.
I would love to move a vote of no confidence on the executive but what is the point when we have a membership that is quite comfortable being governed by a group of people who make decisions just to suit themselves.
I currently chair two other organisations and I simply would not allow this to happen. When a controversial topic arises we look at the consequences of any decision we might make and how people will react to it. If we feel the reaction would outweigh the benefits of such a decision we don't do it. PNZ don't need to worry about this because they know there are very few of us who actually care enough to say anything. The chief executive of the wairarapa DHB has just announced the closure of our hospice right at the beginning of Hospice week!. Impeccable timing. What a great candidate he would be for the PNZ executive as he doesn't care a stuff either what people might think.
So Tom, we just make our opinions known, get called stirrers and trouble makers and then it all dies down until the next issue of contention arises. Thank god for people like Miles, Margret, Mau, Dirk, and others who at least give an opinion. I'm off now to push some old person off their mobility-scooter for no other reason but to vent some frustration.
Graeme Burnard.
Email from Dirk 19/05/08
"Hi Tom
I sent a comment to blog but it obviously didn't come through but it is a response to Graemes last posting. He is not the only person to have written to the PNZ on this matter. I drafted a letter for the WPA on this topic asking for an explanation. It has been sent to the PNZ and referred on to the council.
You can get a copy of the letter from your club delegate or the secretary of the WPA if you wish.
We discussed the irregularity with the voting but also the process of placing a moratorium on sending teams to international events which was sprung on the council without enabling them to consult with their members.
This concerned us as they had voted unanimously the day before that the process for choosing a team would be the same for 2008 as they mentioned in their selection policy.
We felt this was a little dishonest knowing that they were going to ask the council to consider a moratorium the next day.
See Xxxx X for a copy of the letter as it might be worth publishing
Cheers
Dirk."
Update: You can read the letter HERE
My reply to Dirk:
"Hi Dirk,
Sorry you had difficulties.
I am now on a longterm testing contract in Christchurch and this means I am not able to respond as rapidly as I used to. Have asked Xxxxx X for letter and will publish it, as you seem to give me permission to do so. It would still be good for you to reply to GB, just for the record.
Cheers, Tom"
Page Information
|
Wiki Information |
Recent PBwiki Blog Posts |
Create your own free wiki!