The fact that this debate has started here is a sign that the two
organisations are trying to take a measured and consultative approach to the
issue, because it arises a letter which has been sent to all members of both
organisations, signed by the Presidents of both (Alison Russell-French and
John Barkla). I received mine yesterday so some non-Melbourne members here
may not have received them yet. The letter specifically seeks to engage
members of both organisations in the discussion, and lists the CEOs of the 2
organisations (Graeme Hamilton, and Richard
Hunter, as the contact points for the joint Working Group.
I'm a member of Birds Australia, and I had no prior knowledge of this issue,
but I think the way they are going about broaching it is laudable. I'm
inclined to support the move, because that they will gain more clout as a
single representative of birds' & bird-lovers' interests at a national
level, and that's what this is about, it seems to me - establishing a single
*peak* body.
But that's just my view. Some of the concerns raised by individuals in this
discussion so far are entirely appropriate to be raised - so raise them, but
while you're doing it here, make your views known to the Working Group (even
if you aren't a member of either.) Issues raised so far include conservation
practice, local identity and membership as affiliates or separate
organisations, what happens to funds, which organisation is the stronger &
weaker party in the merger, etc. These are important issues for
community-based organisations - really important, because if mishandled they
can tear groups apart.
So make your views known, and seek to have these needs reconciled in a
proposed peak organisation, or if they can't be, then don't proceed. But
when the 2 organisations are taking an inclusive approach, please at least
give them a chance - listen to them, and let them hear you.
Cheers,
Ross Macfarlane
|
