Working Together

Add a Comment

Comment by Chris Stuart on October 7, 2009 at 12:04pm

Thanks Erika,
I talked with other members about the need for such a matrix being displayed. I believe that all members who have important things to say which add to the debate should have a say whether they be from one branch or twenty. At least the matrix would give the top table an indication as to wheteher the debate was balanced or not.
Auckland Branch had five meetings pre AM including a full day meeting for our 23 reps and a full DC meeting of all 90 AM reps.We were all on the same page in our understandings. This fuller understanding of the issues has never happened with our branch before. The opportunity we had to discuss things beforehand saw us having a determination to vote the way we did but we all voted as individuals and were not block voting as we were accused us of. I understand now why National Executive always seem to vote together - they have had a lot of time to discuss and decide on isuues.
Fiona Matipo won my vote when she actually voted for a members resolution in opposition to the rest of NE! First time I have ever seen that happen...
You ask what I thought of the president's ruling? I believe it was a travesty of the way we have always operated. i.e. Take down the names of all people who want to speak; go through the speaking list until there has been some form of balanced debate; ask the representatives if remaining unheard speakers wish to speak for or against the motion and then balance things up before the motion is put. My belief, plain and simple, is that she used her fore knowledge of the way we were moving to stifle Auckland Branch and DC views.
She signalled that on the first morning when the amendment was put by members from North Shore and Auckland to have the discussion on the implications of the Rule Changes before the vote was put. She actually stated that she knew that the Auckland member was against the proposal - a bridge she is certainly going to have to build because in her position of trust it was not for her to make this public. So that is what I think.
If she is going to go geographic ever again I believe that the challenge will be around hearing from representatives who represent the greatest number of members rather than isolated communities with 15 or 25 members through the backblocks of the country. Under the old system this never hindered Rodney-Otamatea getting a say on the floor!
Cheers

Comment by Erika Locke on October 5, 2009 at 1:35am

Kia ora Chris
I could see advantages and disadvantages in the geographic ruling. One of the great elements of attending Annual Meeting is the ability to draw a sense of how important, how passionate our NZEI members feel and value different issues across the country. I do think that some people felt that this could lead to manipulation of the speakers list - something that is easily dispelled if there was a dedicated screen that showed a matrix of geographic names and order of speakers as they came to top table. It did seem somehat disconcerting although this may simply have been because it was new and a different way of doing things. It is always good to have a close tally of speakers for and against particular issues. It can be helpful to trial something for a day and then put it to the meeting, those for and against so that it becomes owned by everyone and not just imposed by someone. What were your thoughts about the ruling?
Erika Locke

Comment by Chris Stuart on October 2, 2009 at 5:50pm

This is a really useful tool Chris. Congratulations. I am looking forward to contributing but sometimes it is too easy to push send without really considering the effect of the message on all recipients. So I for one am getting clearance from my bosses before Is end in anything less than innocuous.
Can I ask what other people thought of the president's ruling that we should depart from how we have always conducted debate to speak geographically?