| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

WpaLetter08

Page history last edited by Tom van Bodegraven 14 years ago

letter from WPA to PNZ - May 6, 2008

 

Dear Barbara

 

At the recent meeting of the WPA concerns were expressed with the way in which the PNZ conducted the business of their Annual General Meeting.

 

Our first concern is in regard to the new governance structure that is due to come into place next year. According to the minutes published on the WPA website the initial vote was lost by 10 votes to 5. An adjournment was then taken for lunch during which time the delegate from the Upper North Island was 'coerced' into changing her vote and requested the opportunity to vote again on this issue. Subsequently the vote was won and the new structure accepted.

 

As an association we find it entirely unacceptable that a delegate voting on behalf of the players in her region should be pressured in such a way that she feels compelled to ignore the wishes of her region and vote in favour of this motion.

 

As a region we were against this motion and instructed our delegate to vote accordingly. We expected that the vote would be conducted in a fair and democratic way with the outcome being accepted as the wishes of the membership. This doesn’t appear to have been the case and we would like an explanation in regard to this issue.

 

The second concern that we have relates to the issue of sending a New Zealand Team to the World Championships in Senegal. At this point the WPA has not taken a stance on this issue. Our concern was the manner in which this issue was handled by the PNZ. On the Saturday at the AGM a motion was carried unanimously regarding the way teams would be chosen for any international competition that the PNZ decided to send a team to. A fair assumption, we believe, was that by allowing this motion to proceed that a team(s) would be given the opportunity of representing their country later in the year. However this turned out to be a wrong assumption as the PNZ executive then asked the council to consider a moratorium on sending teams overseas for this season.

 

Our concerns with the handling of this contentious issue are firstly that the PNZ allowed a motion at the AGM to be passed when it clearly had no intention of allowing it to proceed and secondly that they expected our delegate to vote on the moratorium without first having the opportunity to seek the opinion of the people she was elected to represent.

 

At best we believe the PNZ executive have undermined the integrity of the decision making processes in both these situations and damaged their credibility with our association.

 

We would like an explanation, either in writing or in person, of what lead to both of these situations developing and that both of these decisions be rescinded and revisited at a Special Meeting of Petanque New Zealand.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Wellington Petanque Association

 

(Copies of this letter have been forwarded to clubs represented at the WPA meeting, and is also circulated to other clubs not represented and to other regions, for their information.)


 

See also:

April AGM and Council Meeting Minutes

 

A letter from Graeme Burnard to PNZ on this PAGE.

 

Minutes of the May 2008 WPA meeting

 

PNZ AGM 2009  PNZ did not come clear over the 2008 minutes!!

 

2009 Open Letter to NZ petanque players

 

This page has been viewed times

 

Top


8 Comments:

 

At 6:19 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...

In many ways this is the letter the Auckland members may have wanted to post to PNZ. For some reason Auckland could not get beyond drafting the letter and apparently abandoned the initiative.

 

In contrast, it is encouraging that WPA found serious issues with what took place during these important PNZ meetings. It shows it’s not just the “knockers” and "slaggers” who voice their concerns. Some people are silent and let things happen whichever way it goes, and some people ask questions because they have the good of our game uppermost in their mind. -Tom.


 

At 1:28 PM, Anonymous said...

Congratulations to the WPA on a very good letter to the PNZ and ABOUT TIME that somebody else raised this issue. What you say in your letter is quite correct. I just hope you get a more acceptable repsonse than I did to my letter (this page shows reply from PNZ). We cannot allow such a small group of people have such total control of the running of the affairs of our organisation.

Graeme Burnard


 

At 2:02 PM, Grant Hackett said...

It is always a pity when the facts get in the way of a good bitch session, isn't it?

 

It might be of interest to know.

 

1. Lorraine was under no directive from the APA as to what direction to vote on this issue.

 

2. Lorraine asked Auckland clubs for their opinion before leaving for the meeting. Less that 50% of the clubs offered an opinion which I must admit was slightly in favour of not changing the constitution but and I must emphasise it was Lorraine's call to make on the day, as she saw fit.

 

3. There was NO initial vote taken that was later changed as reported elsewhere. An initial indication of where representatives currently stood was requested. A break took place, Lorraine thought about what had taken place and also sounded out David Lippard (who was also at the meeting) for his take on what was taking place. The meeting recommenced, some more discussion took place and a formal vote was taken, the results of which we now know. Their was no coersion and Lorraine retains the full support and confidence of the APA.

 

Grant Hackett

Acting President and Vice President

Auckland Petanque Association


At 6:41 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...

Grant, this is interesting. Below is the account from PNZ. This was peer-reviewed from a draft version and subsequently published on the PNZ website as part of the official minutes. Are you saying that this official PNZ account is incorrect?

 

“….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.”


 

At 1:12 AM, Grant Hackett said...

Hi Tom

 

Yes it is fair to say the minutes contain several inaccuracies which will be addressed at the next PNZ meeting. Remember minutes of an Annual General Meeting are only "draft" until ratified at the next AGM - 12 months hence. A problem in itself but common to all Incorporated Societies

 

Grant


 

At 7:12 AM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...

Your version of events and the version published by PNZ are very differed. Will it take until the next AGM to sort this out?. It must be rare for AGM minutes not to be ratified. Has this happened before?

 

Does all this mean that the letter from WPA to PNZ is based on inaccurate information? -Tom.


 

At 12:16 PM, Anonymous said...

I think it is quite odd that the PNZ AGM minutes could allegedly be so incorrect if the information that Grant has posted is correct.

 

I do notice that he wasn't present at the meeting (or is that another error in the minutes) so assume that the info he has, is second hand. I also assume that no-one who was present at the meeting has made any comments as to the accuracy of the minutes so assume they are corect. Maybe I assume too much, but find it hard to believe that the PNZ secretary could mis-interpret the meeting to such an extent.

Graeme Burnard


 

Hi Grant,

 

Is it safe to assume that since you have signed off as an official of the APA that you speak on behalf of APA members? If that is the case then I find it sad that your members feel that the concerns of the WPA amount to a bitch session. The letter that was written to the PNZ was written after much discussion and considered debate. It does represent the views of the clubs in our region and was written with their support. The points we raised in the letter were in direct relation to what was written in the minutes of the PNZ. Three members of the WPA, who were actually at the PNZ meeting, did not dispute the accuracy of the minutes. However, if there were inaccuracies in the minutes then that also rests with the PNZ and is of concern.

 

We have written to the PNZ asking for an explanation of the decision making processes that they used. I wonder if they will acknowledge that the minutes of the meeting are as unreliable as you suggest.

 

May I also request that as an office holder of your association that you show some respect for the legitimate concerns of other regional associations rather than belittle our concerns by labelling them as part of a bitch session.

 

We have many people on the WPA who work hard to further the game of petanque in their clubs, their regions and nationally. Your comments are not helpful in this regard.

 

Dirk


 

28/10 The quoted text is taken from this WPA minutes page.

 

“Claire Bradburn said that the APA response dated 2 June 2008 to the WPA email indicated that Lorraine Brock, the Upper North Island delegate, was not given sufficient riding instructions for the AGM. Claire added that the WPA must accept what the APA said. The minutes cannot be corrected until the next AGM in 12 months time, so the WPA will have to wait and see what happens then.”

 

The Upper North Island delegate was not given sufficient riding instructions for the AGM. What does this mean? The question whether she was or not, is interesting in itself but is WPA losing sight of their own letter?

 

The main question was about perceived irregularities at the PNZ AGM, not about “riding instructions”. This letter was based on the accounts of people at the AGM and the subsequent PNZ minutes. I am aghast at reading “The minutes cannot be corrected ”. Corrected? Corrected from what? Is WPA now implying that the minutes are indeed wrong and need correcting? Could it be that the minutes are actually correct?. Apart from the odd typo here and there, they should be correct. They have never been wrong in the past.

 

We effectively have a situation where people at any AGM can do what they like, and if questioned, claim that the facts and minuted are wrong. This in turn would buy 12 months for people to forget even more, or simply lose interest.

 

Serious allegations were made by WPA but we have to wait for an entire year to find out what did take place. In my view this is a totally unacceptable situation. Many people will indeed wait and will put the final versions of the minutes side by side and see how far apart they are. If they turn out to be completely different, we have a whole new set of questions. What a mess. -Tom.


Top

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.