Winning Every Time: Making Your Own Luck
- Details
- Published on Monday, 17 October 2011 00:00
[WARNING TO ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES: We have been contacted by representatives of the Indigenous community who are offended by the name some members of the Board of WIRES have taken for themselves. It is not reformWIRES’ intention to cause offense to Indigenous people. We only wish to report the truth. We apologise for any offense this article may cause the true Elders of our country. Spartacus, 8/11/11.]
The last article on reformWIRES was about the need for constitutional change in WIRES and highlighted some undemocratic practices. One practice mentioned was that of representatives of Standards Teams having the right to vote on the WIRES State Council. This practice is seen by many to disadvantage the legitimate representatives elected by members of branches, by giving equal representation to Standards Teams’ representatives elected by less than ten undisclosed individuals. It is our view that this undemocratic tradition potentially favours the current Board, particularly as details about the actions and constituents of these teams are not wholly public, and are very much influenced by the Board.
In August 2010 the power given to these representatives was extended when they were for the first time permitted to hold positions on the WIRES Board. As a few respondents to this website have commented, there is one Board member who directly benefited from this change: The WIRES Secretary.
Developments in the Secretary’s career in mid to late 2010 are the very exemplar and genesis of the current undermining of local representative democracy in WIRES. They demonstrate why reform from within WIRES is not possible. Some have argued that the battle for reform should be waged internally, not publicly. The events of August 2010 suggest that this is not a battle fairly fought. Conventions are readily ignored and the battle-lines redrawn at will. It reveals a battlefield strewn with not only the fallen, but with those who have fought and won only to find the victory dishonoured. August 2010 is when everything changed.
In the beginning…
The fact that official business is used to flaunt this sarcasm... speaks volumes about the contempt in which [the Board] hold the Council
The Secretary belongs to a group known as “the elders”. It is believed by some that a number of Board members have become entrenched and feel entitled to their positions. In recent times the term “old guard” has been coined to describe this cohort. Some Board members, including the Secretary, have responded by “owning the label” and refer to themselves as “the elders”. This label is employed by the Secretary in official correspondence, which is considered as goading hubris rather than self-veneration by some that are aware of its meaning: The fact that official business is used to flaunt this sarcasm by those who own the label, speaks volumes about the contempt in which they hold the Council. Most outside of the State Council misinterpret this reference, thinking it to be a self congratulation at “the elders” own longevity. They are by no means the longest serving members of WIRES.
The Secretary joined WIRES in 1997. The details about when she first became the representative of her Branch at a state level, and when she first became Secretary of WIRES, are lost in the annals. She was Secretary in February 2008, six months after the constitution was changed, when the newly inaugurated Board first sat at a WIRES State Council meeting. It was four months later in July 2008 that the Secretary appeared on the Administration and Training Standards Team (ATST) at its inaugural meeting. She has remained on the ATST and as WIRES Secretary ever since.
The first Standards Team representative attended at Council in May 2008. Evidence is that from the outset Standards Teams’ representatives were granted the right to vote at Council. This has not been without some controversy. The newly adopted constitution at clause 4.1 was very clear that Standards Teams had the right to representation at Council, provided that the Council approved of this. The obvious problem with this mechanism, should they be allowed to vote, is that if the need arose to remove these representatives at a later stage, they would themselves form part of the very Council voting on their removal. This strange feedback loop, besides creating a conflict of interest, is further complicated by a contradiction in the Constitution.
In the “definitions” at clause 1.5 of the WIRES Constitution it is certain as to who is entitled to represent the membership on the State Council. There is no mention of standing committees and Standards Teams in this part of the document. It describes the Council as “the guiding body” made up of members “elected by their branches”. This definition is further reinforced by the description of a Councillor as a member “elected by his/her branch”. Here it is clear that the Council is to be made up of Branch representatives exclusively.
It has been reported that in order to make the [constitution] more accessible to non-experts, these same non-experts volunteered to rewrite sections of it
This is not the only mistake in this section. The WIRES Board is not mentioned at all in the definitions. Expert lawyers were paid to write this document, but by many accounts the draft produced could not be understood by those representing the organisation at the time. It has been reported that in order to make the document more accessible to non-experts, these same non-experts volunteered to rewrite sections of it. This may be the reason for the conflicting definitions and obvious omissions one can only speculate.
The conflict of meaning between clauses 1 and 4 has resulted in confusion as to whether Standards Teams’ representatives are entitled to vote and stand for the Board. Some believe they are permitted to attend Council meetings but solely as advisors, claiming the conflicting clauses were an inelegant attempt to codify this. This interpretation seems to have been ignored. Rather it seems a convention was established by way of compromise. To work around the incongruity, representatives of Standards Teams were allowed to vote at Council as per clause 4, but as per clause 1 they were not considered for Board positions. This practice continued until August 2010.
Out and Out
On 16 July 2010 the Secretary was defeated in a contest for the position of State Council Representative at her Branch’s Annual General Meeting. She had held this position, and been Secretary to the entire organisation, for many years. It is well known in her branch that she used the Branch’s membership list in the lead up to this vote to canvass every member for support. In light of this, the result was a resounding rejection of her performance as a Councillor, if not also as Secretary. It is felt by some that she took this defeat to heart. They suggest as evidence her self-imposed status as officially and indefinitely “inactive” from duties involving animal care. She has remained inactive within the branch for over two years at least. Within her branch there are few reasons given for her defeat, but many think her participation in the introduction of the new constitution and her closeness to the Board and “elders” were the primary causes.
It was widely rumoured throughout WIRES at this time that “the elders” would not allow the Branch members’ rejection of her to be an obstacle to her continuing as Secretary. It was believed that arrangements would be made to ensure that the wishes of the Secretary’s branch were not honoured. Either the membership is made up of psychic-detectives or there was merit to these prognostications, because she remains as Secretary to this day even without the support of her branch.
Without the legitimate endorsement of her branch, the Secretary at the upcoming WIRES AGM in October 2010 was required to step down from the Council and from office. Her involvement with the ATST becomes very important to her political survival at this point. From our sources, although the workings of Standards Teams are opaque at best, the ATST was comprised entirely of eight Councillors including all bar one of the eight Board members serving at the time. This included a number of “elders”. Put plainly: Except for one person, the ATST was the Board. The other non-board member of the ATST was thier council representative, was from the Chair's branch, was appointed by the Board, and related to the Chair by marriage*. If the rules were changed and representatives of Standards Teams were permitted to be on the Board, then the ATST might be one way for her to retain her position.
(*See the table at the end of this article for more information about ATST composition.)
One or The Other
A WIRES State Council meeting was held on 21 August 2010. Early in the proceedings a discussion, not on the agenda, was had as to whether the Council would allow Standards Teams’ representatives to run as candidates for the Board. A motion to allow it was forwarded and on a show of hands was passed. It was the representative of the ATST, to which the Secretary belonged, that put this motion to the Council. There were 25 Council members in attendance that day from both Branches and Standards Teams. The result of the vote was 22 in favour. The result was a break with established practice and a lucky break for the Secretary.
When one adds the seven Standards Teams’ representatives to the seven board members present, there were 14 out of 25 with a potential vested interest in the motion succeeding. Put another way, 56% of those in attendance were from at least one of these two groups. Combined they could have passed it without further support from other Council members.
This change meant that should the Secretary secure the approval of the ATST then she could remain as a Councillor and run once more for Secretary at the upcoming AGM. However, she was not the only member of the ATST to recently lose the endorsement of her branch. There was one other person, also on the Board and a fellow “elder”, who had been rejected by her branch too.
Later in the meeting’s proceedings the Secretary’s husband donated some of his professional advice by way of a presentation. The up shot of this was the recommendation that a new Standards Team be created with very similar objectives to that of the ATST. Some would argue this new team would allow both “elders” to keep the positions that their branches had just removed from them. It would certainly be a fortuitous development coinciding as it did with an obvious need. The Council did not see immediate need for another team however and decided to defer the matter.
Fifty-fifty
She was back on the Board with her fellow “elders”, still the Secretary, and regardless of the wishes of her Branch
Without the new team suggested by the Secretary’s husband there was only one chance for her to stay on the Council and Board. She would need to be nominated to represent the ATST. At some time between the August meeting and the AGM on 16 October a vote was held within the ATST. According to the minutes of this meeting the ballot resulted in a tie. It was apparently agreed by all present that the only way to break the deadlock was to flip a coin. The Secretary was the lucky winner, and at the WIRES AGM 2010 she was back, this time as the ATST representative. She was back on the Board with her fellow “elders”, still the Secretary, and regardless of the wishes of her Branch.
Dust to Dust
There is much confusion over what is democracy, not only in WIRES but in the field of political science as well. In fact democracy takes many forms. In WIRES decisions are not made through direct democracy: Every matter is not put to each and every individual for consideration. Some have argued therefore that WIRES is not democratic at all and need not consider democratic processes. That is bunkum and ignorant. The constitution is quite clear that members’ wishes are to be expressed through elected representatives.
No credible representational system is designed for the deliberate unequal distribution of power which is manifest here by allowing standards teams to vote
This is representational democracy, and representational democracy is all about people. Although the people in this system do not directly make decisions on each issue, their representatives are directly responsible to them for the decisions made. The representatives are not free to do as they wish. They are entitled not to keep power, as power does not belong to them; it belongs to the people they represent. No credible representational system is designed for the deliberate unequal distribution of power which is manifest here by allowing standards teams to vote. The membership is the powerbase and the representatives need to be directly accountable to it.
WIRES State Council Representatives should be accountable to those they represent. The most fundamental accountability is had when the members choose who will represent them through local branch elections. When this fundamental mechanism is side-stepped, as it was with the Secretary, the foundations of legitimacy are undermined. The decision to let Standards Teams' representatives vote at Council and sit on the Board allows those Board members to be unaccountable to the membership by distancing them from the legitimate powerbase. A membership cannot affect change within a representational democracy when accountability is dodged in this way.
In closing, there is one loose end in this history that needs to be tied up. That “elder” who lost her branch’s support, and missed out on the position of Council Representative on the ATST, did not return to Council. In recent months however she has appeared on the NSW Wildlife Council as WIRES’ representative and now NWC Vice Chair. The NWC is the state’s peak policy body. Neither the WIRES State Council nor the WIRES membership was consulted about this highly influential appointment which affects every member of WIRES, if not every wildlife carer in NSW. It was made by the WIRES Board exclusively. We wish her the best of luck but expect she will not need it.
THE ATST AS AT AUGUST 2010 | |
|---|---|
|
Board - Chair |
Branch Rep |
|
Board - Secretary |
Branch Rep - lost branch endorsement 2010 |
|
Board - ordinary |
Branch Rep - lost branch endorsement 2010 |
|
Board - Treasurer |
Branch Rep |
|
Board - ordinary |
Branch Rep |
|
Board - ordinary |
Branch Rep |
|
Board - ordinary |
Branch rep |
|
Outsider |
ATST Council Rep^ |
|
^Note: Branch reps cannot be ATST rep as they already represent a branch at council. |
|
Write the minister
Got Something to Say?
Don't Like Us?
FREE SPEECH says it all
WIRES won't let their members speak about what really goes on. FREE SPEECH is where you can say what you want anonymously without fear of reprisal.
Comments
What policy or criterion is written into our Constitution regarding this important role?
Our previous representative on NSW Wildlife Council was less than satisfactory. Is the new appointee more qualified?
Why is there not a transparent process in place?
It smells awfully like more of the same dictatorial rule we’ve suffered for years.
Maybe if the position was advertised to members there might be some applications!
I recall years ago the recommendation about WIRES needing to offer greater remuneration to attract high quality applicants for the vacant (at time) CEO position. This was done. However, soon after, the SMC (as the Board was then) made changes which enabled one of themselves to take on the position; convenient cronyism. This was supposed to be temporary, but to WIRES detriment, it went onnnnn... So, our Chairperson, SMC Rep of a country branch, also became CEO. From my understanding, he certainly didn’t have the skills that had been previously required; did they reduce his pay accordingly? I presume not. So how many other WIRES members are allowed to reside 400klms from the Branch they are members of?
Certainly the lack of selection criteria in the appointment of the CEO position was a very questionable decision.
S.
1 - off topic and no email to make contact;
3 - original withdrawn by author and then reposted;
4 - sent in error - were supposed to go to our email;
8 - withdrawn by us due to legal concerns - agreed to by the author - most reposted;
5 - withdrawn by us due to legal concerns - not reposted;
3 - were mine!
1 - Looking through the record I have found a post from you that was taken down some weeks ago. It was on the "Fair Dinkum?" thread and starts "This annoys me..." This was an error on our part - I apologise - it was removed in error. I have approved it and it is back on the thread. You only had to ask. We have not rejected any other of your posts and you have posted many times. So you can now make that 24 posts rejected, most of them reposted in some form, from posts totalling around 200.
S.
I am sure that many WIRES members find it offensive too. Thank you for writing into this web site - this Management put themselves on a pedestal by their very actions, but have they earned the honour to be called anything at all? As a lover of our native wildlife and a person who is very concerned about the way this organisation is run I must also add my comments in the hope that, by bringing the public into the arena of discussion, we can rectify the appalling situation in which we wildlife carers find ourselves.
Our people have cared for country, including all the animals, since the beginning of time. We know this from the stories in our dreaming. Through kinship relationships we are bound to each other. Through the Ancient Lore our people are related to the land and the wildlife. The animals are our totems and our family. The koala is a lore maker in much of Australia; the Eagle and the Crow, the Black Cockatoo and White are some that represent Traditional nations and clans of our people. Through these connections the spirits of our ancestors live. For many centuries it has been this way. To be an Indigenous Elder is to care for people and for country, and to honour our ancestors.
We have had our culture and family, tradition and justice stolen from us. The Sorry Day reminds us of this loss, but reminds us also of who we are and always were. To be an Elder is an honour, earned by the Elders who have suffered before my time. As an Indigenous person today I must try to repair the damage done, mend my people and keep alive my culture for the next generations . All this is demeaned when WIRES people call themselves “elders”.
But the really strange and massively insensitive (because it is completely disconnected) mention of a past Indigenous member’s death -- particularly when references to this have such strong cultural resonances in Indigenous communities -- reinforces this sense of self-focussed anxiety and misunderstanding of the stakes, just as did your mention of movies, witches, etc.
Open your heart please, and your mind, and try to understand beyond your own self-focussed purview why someone who is Indigenous to this country might find the hard-won and community given title of Elder’s self-appointed and -serving application by non-Indigenous Australians at the very least a thing to feel sensitive about.
But if I go to lunch tomorrow with the elders of my family that is not disrespect. And if the people who have been meeitng a long time every 6 weeks talk of meeting with the elders of WIRES is that disrespect?
This is why I am upset. I think instead of real ideas the angry people are looking for excuses to hit the ones on the WSC and Board. If you want to be treated fairly you must be fair and not look for things to attck.
Like bullyings. Sometimes there is real bullying. But sometimes it is people who do not want to do the right thing and take joeys to supermarkets and feed them tea and biscuits and when the coordinators try to object they say they are being buillied and make complaints about the coordinators. Or take little peices and put them together wrong to make a committee or coordinator look bad. And that bullying is just as bad as the bullying of a coordinator that is not being fair. And is is what happens when you let personal attack be going round and round instead of getting documents and saying calmly this bit could be worded so it is understood better or that can be made easier. Can anbody hear what im saying?
Then if after some time they do not change it that is disrespect not before but I think all people must be careful not to make all things just too difficult so no one can speak what they feel because no matter how careful we are something we say will hurt someone else without intent
“This site is about ideas not people yet all i see are personal attacks” - Answer is YES, that is all YOU see.
“ I am upset because the ideas are not being discused here only the people.” - Then why is it that every time you seem to focus on one odd thing and avoid any comment about the substance of anything that is mentioned? Not once have you contributed to the debate and addressed the issues. Not once!
“You need to write and say I am Mounse from the so and so people.” - mouse just did write and say that, and you have bagged them for it. The reason they won’t identify themselves is because “Sometimes there is real bullying.” She is probably in wires and wants to keep her licence!
“It hurts us when you use the word elders. We know you did not mean disrespect but can you change it please.” - mouse doesnt know that no disrespect was meant, that’s your interpretation, neither do I know that (in fact I find it hard to believe they didn’t notice).
“Can anbody hear what im saying?” - Answer is YES (loud and clear).
You and we are Australian’s, and should therefore respect the people that are entitled to be called ELDERS and not have it bandied around by a lot of past WIRES members who are seen as the main reason that WIRES is still operating in the dark ages.
Maybe you could draw an appropriate word from way back when....and use that instead.
I’m relieved to read that in some branches Aboriginal people have been permitted to join WIRES. I am ashamed that, in our Branch, they have been discouraged, & if they have persisted, their applications to join have been "lost", as the "Stagnants" have often expressed the opinion (behind closed doors) that "we cannot have people licensed to be wildlife carers, that are legally permitted to eat wildlife" ... The lack of tolerance, the narrow-mindedness, the prejudice & the stupidity of this attitude makes me feel physically sick. I have aboriginal family members & friends. This is yet another aspect of the reign of the "Stagnants" which has forced me to withdraw my involvement in the Branch, as I find working with them intolerable.
Holy hell. If anybody in WIRES is actually saying this, or if there’s even a general culture of concern about wildlife eating and the cultural background of volunteers, that’s incredibly disturbing and incredibly racist, and is of course completely in breach of the racial discrimination act. Any employer who said anything like this, or who had a history of losing applications from any one racial group, would be dealt with quick smart. Cretins with such concerns have no place in any organisation, let alone one which officially acts for the state of NSW as wildlife managers.
Good on anyone who pushes back against this kind of rotten nonsense from within or without.
Is Hilary Clinton bisexual? I didn’t know that! Hilary “gets a new partner... (man or woman)”? What? When did that happen!
Nepotism is always poisonous. Even if someone can passably do a job -- and that’s certainly not the case in the core instance above -- it has a larger and more troubling cultural effect: it erodes participation from those who would do better than passable.
(And of course HIllary, extremely talented as she is, should not have her current job, passable though she is at it. It stinks of dynastic hubris, of reward, of familiarity and family over merit. There were much better and more honest candidates for that gig than her I giggle when ever I remember her made-up story about landing under fire. Just as, obviously, George W shouldn’t have gotten the job he did and only did so on the basis of his family’s deep political history. It seems pretty obvious to me, Guest, that in trying to raise a stink and telling us about your generalised state of personal offence, you are attempting an insubstantial bait and switch here, in order to draw away attention from the substantial particulars of the article.)
hold is a status symble, they do not seem to really care about the Wildlife when it comes down to the nitty gritty. As for the
NPWL they seemed to be controlled by this board and haven’t got the guts to stand up for what the job is all about
PROTECTION & PRESERVATION OF OUR NATIVE WILDLIFE. get your act together and back to reallity and listen
to the members , we are not all Liars so there must be TRUTH in what we are trying to get thru, Keep them honest
and do not manipulate the constitution to suit themselves and get away with it.
The problem in the Council meetings is that the Board chairs and controls them. There are 9 Board members out of 35 Council members, that is 27 branch reps and 8 Standard Team reps. If every branch attends, which they don’t it meams any vote requires 10 votes to win. Most Council meeting 22 - 25 people are present.
It takes a fair bit of determination and discipline to wade through both the initial and follow up papers presented here.
Who is the author & is information is factual/ accurate? As a member who knows little (nothing) of the workings of the Council & Board, it certainly seems every member should be concerned at the ’goings-on’ of our “representatives”. How can a person be elected/appointed to a State body presiding over wildlife isses, (supposedly as “our” representative), yet not be even a member of our own Wires Council? It would seem that the Board is a law unto itself? Is the Board representative of the Council? (with council representing every member in each branch?) Sure seems likely that Council allowing Standards Team members onto Board has stacked the Board somehow? what’s being done to turn-around decisions made that go beyond the authority ’given’ by our Constitution?
Quote:NO JOKE. WTF? Its so incestuous and tangled. Until really recently no one could find out who was on these teams or how they got there - no membership list, no minutes, no nothing. All very strange and if you asked for the information you became public enemy no. 1 - the indignation that you could have the hide to question the integrity of the elders - like, sorry, your integrity is not the issue, my right to know is - its nothing to do with your feelings and I shouldn’t have to make my rights submit to your fragile ego! The depth of integrity and professionalism on the board...? - sorry did I say depth! Whoever made that pool of talent didn’t put in a deep end.
Amendments to the current 5.5 Standard team policy were placed onto the agenda in December 2010 before the tenure of these teams were to expire in Feb 2011. This item was not heard until April 2011 so was not given any priority. Most likely as there were a couple of "controversial " points on these amendments such as listing who is on the teams, time limits for new nominees and conflict of interest issues. This item was passed onto the ATST.
At the same time there was an agenda item for review and suggested amendments to the Constitution. there was very litte discussions and debate on this issue and in fact everyone around the room was only able to make one comment with no right of reply by the presenter. This item has not been followed up or actioned to alert the membership that this would be looked at. It suggested that it be handed over to the ATST team or new governance team yet to be formed.
native animals and should be taking over management.
I believe the problem in NSW stems from the licensing situation, which puts volunteer groups in charge of the entire field of wildlife rehab, & of the licensing of wildlife carers; but has no oversight over the behaviour of the groups at all. No other state does this to their wildlife carers. This gives groups enormous power over the carers, & far too often this power is grossly abused, & the groups are not behaving ethically. The result in our area, has been that with so many people being driven out all the time, there are often calls for injured wildlife that get unanswered, (both by WIRES, which is the other group in the area, which also has big problems), & by this other group. Or where no one can be found to pick up the injured animal. This happens far too often. It’s the wildlife which suffers. Meanwhile, there are many excellent former wildlife carers, with great facilities, that are empty, because they’ve been driven out of a group due the egos & politics, who won’t put themselves into such a destructive situation again, so are not able to be licensed. They’ve paid many thousands for equipment, which is now unused. It’s ridiculous. I’ve seen dedicated, intelligent people being driven to a nervous breakdown, & taking years to recover, due to the disgusting things that were done to them by persons in power in a group. Yet no one has any options. You either have to put up with it, or you are unlicensed. It’s wrong.
NWC was supposed to provide a separate body that could oversee the groups, but they refused to do so when asked by DECC. In fact, they don’t do much at all, other than collect a lot of money; which could be better spent on wildlife. There has to be some sort of oversight of the behaviour of the groups, & somewhere to raise serious concerns that are dealt with. Otherwise, DECC should issue individual licenses, like EVERY other state in the country does, & people could then vote with their feet as to which group they wish to be part of. The current situation has no accountability for groups at all, & far from ensuring good standards, it simply entrenches the poor standards of those in power in groups & gives them incentive to cover up poor standards of individuals to protect the group’s license.
The minutes are incorrect a whole other topic. There was some questions by a Board member as to a couple of foods, but this didn’t change the diet as proposed by the outside experts and the SMST. The SMST had asked that the new diet be printed off as an insert and free of charge sent to all members who had completed a possum course in the last 2 years so members could now feed their possums a correct diet. This was an action item from the Board and Council meeting and has not been sent by the secretary.