Luke and Paul
I am not qualified to speak for BA (although I am a member and could
probably get a copy of their constitution if I put the effort in) but BOCA
is legally "A Company limited by Guarantee not having a Share Capital" - our
constitution is available online at
http://www.birdobservers.org.au/aboutUs/pdfs/BOCAConstitution-24-4-07.pdffor
those who are interested.
Legally we have no share capital and thus no shareholders. We have clearly
defined objectives enshrined in the constitution (which are thus what I and
my fellow directors must strive towards) - these are stated as :
4.1.1 to promote public understanding of the ecological and economic
importance of Australian birds and their habitat;
4.1.2 to monitor and investigate threats to the survival of Australian
birds and their habitats and to take action to maintain, protect or
enhance that survival;
4.1.3 to develop and promote educational programs and materials
which engender attitudes sympathetic to the protection, wellbeing
and appreciation of Australian birds;
4.1.4 to encourage the scientific study and research of Australian birds
and their habitats, so as to facilitate their conservation and wellbeing;
and
4.1.5 to foster ethical bird observing as a social and individual activity
directed to benefit Australian birds.
As is usual we are governed by a Board of Directors and we face an Annual
AGM open to all our members. Directors basically serve a 3 year term with
1/3rd having to face re-election each year.
Any change to our constitution - which would include a change to our
objectives - has to be passed by a 75% majority of members voting at a
General Meeting.
So our members are clearly in control - whilst I am personally (and as a
Director) in favour it is the job our two Boards to produce a proposal that
our members will be happy to vote for.
Dave
On 2 February 2010 20:58, Luke & Amber Shelley <> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out Paul, I wasn't aware of that. I am a member of
> BA, but I must admit I don't bother too much with details. Does this mean we
> will eventually have the opportunity to vote?
>
> Of course, my statement was partially inflamatory, and based on the
> assumption that the interests of the members do not align with that of the
> organization(s), which is clearly wrong! Please don't take all of my posts
> on here literally. I think it is great that they give members an opportunity
> to provide guidance to a working group. If they wanted, I guess they could
> have just put together a proposal and gone directly to a vote.
>
> I think both organizations do a wonderful job, especially considering the
> recent economic climate and competitive way that [the small amount of] funds
> are distributed by the Government. Despite that, they still mange to engage
> the community, collect valuable data, and produce high quality science.
>
> --
> Luke
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 02/02/2010, at 19:47, "Paul Dodd" <> wrote:
>
> Hi Luke,
>>
>> I don't believe that either BA (RAOU) or BOCA are constituted as
>> companies,
>> as such they don't have shareholders. Rather their respective
>> constitutions
>> gives members the ultimate decision - even if this wasn't exactly what the
>> constitutions said, they are certainly organised "for the benefit of the
>> members" - so it really only makes sense for the members to have the final
>> decision.
>>
>> BTW - I am definitely "FOR" the merger. I believe that the advantages
>> outweigh the potential issues and disadvantages. Clearly though, there are
>> many issues to resolve - not least the fate of the various magazines and
>> journals. Additionally (in Victoria, at least) there are cultural
>> differences between the organisations - it is important that the
>> respective
>> cultures are respected, and preserved, where possible.
>>
>> Paul Dodd
>> Docklands, Victoria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of Luke Shelley
>> Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 5:29 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Combining BA - BOCA About Bloody Time!
>>
>> This is an interesting situation here. Yes, both organisations have a
>> membership base, and they contribute financially, but they are not
>> 'shareholders'. Therefore, I would think it ludicrous to let members have
>> the 'final say'.
>>
>> Both organisations have a common goal in the conservation of birds and
>> their
>> habitats in this country, which is clearly the motivation behind this
>> move.
>> It would be a real shame if, for arguments sake, the merger did not go
>> ahead
>> because the members of one or both of the organisations did not support
>> it,
>> despite it being the a very positive move for the future of bird
>> conservation in Australia.
>>
>> --
>> Luke
>> ===============================
>> www.birding-aus.org
>> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>> ===============================
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10
>> 12:37:00
>>
>> ===============================
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,send the message:
> unsubscribe(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
> ===============================
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|