The letter below was sent to PNZ as a result of this part item from the April 08 PNZ AGM.

Remit 1(a)

“….The Southern and Canterbury regional delegates indicated that they would vote in favour of the remit. LNI and UNI delegates said that they had been instructed by their member clubs to vote against it. A vote was taken and the remit was rejected (5 votes for, 10 against). The meeting then adjourned. On resumption, Lorraine advised that she had reconsidered her position and asked that her vote be changed to one of support. The final vote was therefore 10 votes for, 5 against.”

 

38 Kent Street

Carterton

02/05/08

 

The Secretary

Petanque New Zealand

P O Box 31127

Lower Hutt

 

Dear Barbara,

 

I understand a vote was retaken at the AGM on a remit which altered the acceptance of this remit.

 

There is nothing in the constitution to state that this is allowed.

PNZ may argue that if it isn’t mentioned then it can be allowed but I question whether the decision to allow this is ethical or moral.

 

The delegate concerned had plenty of time to consider the remit and discuss it with her members. Why then, is she allowed to change her vote?

 

I would request that the original vote be made to stand and that the minutes be amended to reflect that change.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Graeme Burnard

Reply from PNZ

 

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

 

See also: April 2008 AGM and Council Meeting Minutes

 

You can read a letter from WPA to PNZ on this PAGE.

 

The following has been inserted from this PAGE:

 

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.

 

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?.

“Regional representatives

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.

 

It is interesting to see that the clubs in the lower North Island do have a problem. They at least show they care about the process. Without proper processes and systems, nothing will ever work. It's about trust and integrity. As a group we cannot work together without these two elements - trust and integrity. -Tom.

This page has been viewed times


Page Information

  • Changed 2 months ago [show history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • No tags yet learn more

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts