IPRA Constitution

A place to chat about the state of the IPRA nation, ask (non-technical) questions about IPRA, etc.
Public Read and Write

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:43 am

I asked the question here!

The last ballot was in 2012 and was for changes to the way technical/rule changes were made from a unanimous vote of the delegates to a two thirds majority.

There was never any mention of changing the way the NA was elected or that the constitution could be changed by the executive without the members going to ballot!
SA#91 Suzuki Swift GTi

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10481
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:59 am

What we do in NSW is the nominations for the position have to be in by 31st October and our Delegate brings that list to the next General Meeting. We vote on it at the GM (simple majority) and our Delegate then takes that vote to the Delegates meeting to elect the National Administrator. If there is no physical get together in the required time frame the Delegates do it via phone conference.

As always within the IPRA Constitution there is the provision that if anyone doesn't like the decision of the Delegates a petition can be raised which requires 20 members to sign. That kicks in the formal written ballot of all IPRAA Members, so it's always there if we need it.


Cheers
Gary

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:29 am

Still doesn't answer my question, WHY WAS IT CHANGED!!!!!!

There was no ballot for this change, which makes the constitution null and void!

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10481
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:42 pm

moylee19 wrote:Still doesn't answer my question, WHY WAS IT CHANGED!!!!!!
There was no ballot for this change, which makes the constitution null and void!
It was changed because in the last full ballot held we had less than a 25% response. So the ballot process was demonstrably not performing the task for which it was established, ie; representing the views of the majority of IPRAA Members. In addition the lists of the members (from each State) and their addresses supplied to the National Administrator were out of date, inaccurate and incomplete. Which greatly diminished the reliability of the ballot process.

Again I repeat, if you believe that the current constitution is null and void (without a full ballot) then you have the option of garnering 20 signatures on a petition to demand said ballot.


Cheers
Gary

willing4
one foot in the grave
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:25 pm
Location:
Location: Melbourne

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by willing4 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:47 pm

I think Simon is only taking issue with the changes regarding NA provisions, not the ballot changes for rule amendment.
cheers
SW

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:48 pm

willing4 wrote:I think Simon is only taking issue with the changes regarding NA provisions, not the ballot changes for rule amendment.
cheers
SW

BINGO, WINNER, WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, why was all this changed?

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10481
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:03 pm

moylee19 wrote:
willing4 wrote:I think Simon is only taking issue with the changes regarding NA provisions, not the ballot changes for rule amendment.
cheers
SW
BINGO, WINNER, WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, why was all this changed?
Do you mean why? I thought I answered that, because 25% (the last Ballot) wasn't deemed a suitable response.
Or do you mean how? I thought I answered that too. by the Delegates taking it their respective State Members at GM's and them voting accordingly.

Section 10 of the Constitution refers specifically to the NA ie, not rules amendment;
10. REMOVAL OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
10.1 If any two State or Territory Delegates together and / or a signed petition of 20 members notify in writing to all
members of the Executive Committee that the National Administrator has been In default of his duties and if
after the expiration of 30 days such default has not been rectified, then by a, further notice of any two State or
Territory Delegates the position of National Administrator will become vacant within the expiration of 30 days.

10.2 In the event of a second notice being served under Clause 10.1 above, the Executive Committee shall arrange
to meet within 30 days and a new National Administrator may be selected by the Executive Committee until
such time as an election may be held,


Cheers
Gary

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:12 pm

So who made the decision to change all of that?

Once again, for these changes under the PREVIOUS constitution to have taken place, it had to be done by ballot.
Yes, the rule changes were voted upon, but there was nothing in regards to any constitutional change regarding the way in which the NA was appointed, so these changes have been made under false pretenses.

Am I not being clear enough Gary?

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:15 pm

So Scott, are you in agreement with me?

willing4
one foot in the grave
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:25 pm
Location:
Location: Melbourne

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by willing4 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:01 pm

It doesnt matter what the previous constitution said as such.
It all depends on the specific wording of the ballot and then the order in which subsequent actions were taken.

If the original ballot allows for amendment to the rules and constitution,then once that has passed, the authority to make subsequent changes (including how the na is elected then goes to the delegates, based on the nominated 5 member majority. (I think that was the number but may be wrong).

I would need to review the minutes with respect to the order of events and the ballot wording detail, so cant give you whether I consider it correct or not (the scope of the amendments made).

The only way you will get your answer (correctly) is to ask Luigi (or whoever is the SA delegate now) for a copy of the minutes. (which I think was the direction that Gary was trying to steer you in).

cheers

SW

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10481
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:06 pm

moylee19 wrote:So who made the decision to change all of that?
Once again, for these changes under the PREVIOUS constitution to have taken place, it had to be done by ballot.
Yes, the rule changes were voted upon, but there was nothing in regards to any constitutional change regarding the way in which the NA was appointed, so these changes have been made under false pretenses.
Am I not being clear enough Gary?
Yes, I believe I understand your question and I thought I had answered it. Let me have one more go.
There was nothing in the "previous" Constitution that mandated a Ballot (for example to change the Constitution itself) had to be a post out, via snail mail, to every member, in writing and then a snail mailed back response. A Constitutionally satisfying Ballot could be held at a General Meeting, as it was in NSW. Obviously I can't speak for the other States.

Noting the Oxford Dictionary definition of "ballot" = A system of voting secretly and in writing on a particular issue.

To answer your question as to who "who made the decision", in NSW's case it was the eligible (to vote) Members who attended the GM in response to a written (in the IPRANSW magazine which goes to every member) invitation and who voted in the Ballot. BTW, I didn't vote as I wasn't the holder of an IP log book. From memory it was unanimous, but it was recorded in the Minutes for reference. Those minutes were presented to the National Administrator as evidence of Constitutional compliance.

Did I nail it that time?
Cheers
Gary

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:11 pm

I believe that it does Gary, have a loo at the constitution provided in the first post in this topic.
12.2 clearly states this.

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:13 pm

willing4 wrote:It doesnt matter what the previous constitution said as such.
It all depends on the specific wording of the ballot and then the order in which subsequent actions were taken.

If the original ballot allows for amendment to the rules and constitution,then once that has passed, the authority to make subsequent changes (including how the na is elected then goes to the delegates, based on the nominated 5 member majority. (I think that was the number but may be wrong).

I would need to review the minutes with respect to the order of events and the ballot wording detail, so cant give you whether I consider it correct or not (the scope of the amendments made).

The only way you will get your answer (correctly) is to ask Luigi (or whoever is the SA delegate now) for a copy of the minutes. (which I think was the direction that Gary was trying to steer you in).

cheers

SW
Hi Scott,
Thanks, it would be nice to see what the ballot was for, as I was lead to believe that it was specific to a point eg. 12.1 of the constitution, not the constitution in general.

Cheers
Simon

switch
one foot in the grave
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: sydney
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by switch » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:27 pm

moylee19 wrote:I believe that it does Gary, have a loo at the constitution provided in the first post in this topic.
12.2 clearly states this.
12.2 Changes to the Constitution may only be achieved by a ballot of all members where 2/3 (two thirds) of eligible respondent votes are affirmative.

That is from the 2010 file in the first post. It does not say a post out ballot, just simply a ballot. The method of the ballot according to that wording is open to interpretation as no specific method is stated. For me I think it is better if it is done at a states GM as the number of people attending the meetings would surely be greater than the last post out response of 25% of all members.
Last edited by switch on Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:36 pm

it still says all members, not all members attend meetings.
Also refer to 12.6, they must be returned to the returning officer, as decided by the NA, how can this be done at a GM?

switch
one foot in the grave
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: sydney
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by switch » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:47 pm

I originally edited my previous post to include this but feel it may be missed.

Edit: A further reading indicates from items 12.4 onwards that ballot forms should be distributed directly to the members. However once again the method for distribution is not specified. In the end though the current situation is your delegate votes on issues based on your states overall opinion. Now as I am new to IP as far as I am aware this has happened like this for a while, prior to 2010, and if so it means by your assumption that just like the change of the rules for the NA the changing of general rules has been unconstitutional as 12.1 in the 2010 documents specifies a ballot also.
moylee19 wrote:it still says all members, not all members attend meetings.
That is true, in NSW at least we are notified about the meetings and any pertinent issue to be voted on or discussed. Now putting on my tinfoil hat, if as Gary has said that members don't update their residential address then technically they are not notified which means that all members are not notified and then the ballot "technically" hasn't been conducted correctly. The change of the rules streamlines this. If you trust your delegate to vote on your behalf for rule changes of which a ballot does not take place why do you not agree that this is the better way to make changes to the constitution?

switch
one foot in the grave
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: sydney
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by switch » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:50 pm

moylee19 wrote:Also refer to 12.6, they must be returned to the returning officer, as decided by the NA, how can this be done at a GM?
As in my previous post the 2010 document says the same thing about general rule changes. was it done that way prior to 2010?

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10481
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by TwinTurbo » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:09 am

At our GM's and AGM's we (IPRANSW) have a Returning Officer for all votes, from memory back then it was Peter Street.

To my reading inviting all Members to cast a vote complies with the Constitution. As has always been the case, whether it be a snail mail Ballot or a Ballot held at a GM. Members choosing not to vote, either in person or by proxy, doesn't invalidate the Ballot.

Also from memory for the last snail mail Ballot the Returning Officer was a CAMS official with the return address being the CAMS office. As there was questioning from some about the independence of a member being the Returning Officer.

If your query is in regards to the ballot for the current NA, I strongly suggest that you talk to your Delegate. I'm not avoiding any general Constitutional interpretations, but I'm sorry I can't help you with your local questions. They are most definitely best directed to your Delegate, I'm sure he has all the details necessary to answer your questions.


Cheers
Gary

gmontrack
old timer
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:48 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by gmontrack » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:44 am

As Gary Cook, and others, have said you do need to go to your respective state Delegate and ask for a copy of the minutes to the National Board meetings that are held every year. Once you read them it may become clear, or it may not as they can be a little confusing for some, as to how and why things are changed.
Believe me, all items are heavily discussed and debated and all states given a chance to have a say.

The ballot that you are talking about here which lead to the change on how the NA is appointed was held in late 2012. It went out to all states but the SA club chose not to send it out to it members(not sure why exactly).
The ballot was simply to ask for a change to 12.1 from a "unanimous" to a "2/3 majority" wording.
The result was approx 41% return(extremly high going on previous ballots) with an overwhelming 91% voting yes to the change.

I think the result and outcome was clearly warranted judging by the response and more significantly we now have a workable system which I think all (well almost all) are now happy with.

GM

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: IPRA Constitution

Post by moylee19 » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:13 am

Thanks Garry,

But, there is always a BUT!

12.1 refers to rule changes, nothing to do with the constitution nor the appointment of the NA. That is where my problem lays.
9.1 has been changed along with many other points. I wasn't questioning the changes to 12.1, it is the others that I am!

I have spoken to my local delegate and he is gathering up the minutes for me to have a look at.

Cheers
Simon

Post Reply