Elections 103 - Australian Jewish News declares Yeshivah Elections Chaotic

It seems that our community newspaper has reached the same conclusion as many in the Yeshivah community.

For those interested in following this Blog, (apparently also the AJN), you will be aware of the commentary ( Elections 101) that in my opinion, Yeshivah has interfered inappropriately in this election process.   Yeshivah appears to be in this (chaos) space again, with Mr Yudi New now sending out an anonymous letter to the YBRSL candidates on 24 November seeking to have the candidates amend their agendas.  
It's easy to see why the AJN might be calling the elections chaotic.

A CALL FOR CONVICTION  

The anonymous letter disseminated this week by Mr New to the YBRSL candidates 'purporting' to have been written by the staff is an unimpressive piece of work, regardless of whoever the author/s of this letter are that have patched it together. 
In mainstream politics there is a particularly coarse, vulgar and ugly term for an unsigned letter of this type which I won't repeat on-line.  Why is an anonymous letter treated with this kind of contempt and disdain?  Because regardless of the excuses offered for anonymity, it is unattributable, unidentifiable and the authors are prepared to offer nothing of their own character nor commitment to their words.  An anonymous letter is  nothing more than a tool to hide behind while smearing and manipulating the reputation, agendas and resolution of others.  In this case, in the run-up to the election, a number of candidates, along with a number of staff at the school.

This is a worthless and shameful piece of work.  The gutlessness of whoever wrote this indicates a person or persons without the courage to stand by their convictions.  As names are absent, so too it makes sense to treat the words that precede them as devoid of credibility, honour and most particularly value.

Furthermore, this letter makes references to matter that if it was truly written by staff, it could not nor should not know.

So just WHO wrote this letter?   Was it 'one' number of the purported Staff?  Was it 'two' of the purported Staff?  Three?  Four?  More?  None at all?  From beginning to the end, the one series of words that identify who this letter comes from are missing...  as far as I am concerned it is written by no-one.  Certainly no-one with any credibility.

And so to something of the content of this nameless, worthless and unsavoury piece.
Among other statements, the letter goes to some length to address why candidates should amend their agendas, thereby going to the lengths of sullying the good intent and working reputations of a number of nominees for the School Board among their prospective peers. 

What is the purpose of an election if candidates are not free to express what they believe to be best intent goals and outcomes by which they wish to serve the community?  By what right does the author of this letter believe it is within his/her purview to leverage the action and intent of those choosing to engage with the school membership on issues they address using anonymity as a screen?
It's not as if there is any whistleblowing going on here...
And on what grounds does Yeshivah buy into this process???

Indicative of the quality of remarks that do the author(s) no pride are those listed below. 

If this letter, presented without evidentiary backing is not a superlative example of 'going at it' on the basis of rumours and 'shouting the loudest' it would be hard-pressed for competition.  

On this basis candidates are requested to 'remove misinformation'.  Misinformation according (again), to the definition of some nameless individual.

Perhaps it would be worth reminding this 'individual' or 'individuals' that if he or she is truly a member of staff, then he/she is an employee and it is the responsibility of the Board to prepare a strategy and agenda that they consider will serve the school best.  The gall of suggesting that as a staff they need to be 'confident that a governing body is going to support our school on a factual basis...' is in every way disrespectful and plain rude.  But I suppose you can get away with all these behaviours if you are prepared to hide behind anonymity.

The letter speaks at length about issues of workplace bullying in the schools, besmirching teachers who have been bullied in the workplace.  It notes that 'small numbers of people have alleged that they were bullied in the workplace...' and that the school has been cleared of all allegations.  

The reality is that the author, if a member of the teaching staff, as suggested in the letter,  is highly unlikely to be in a position to be aware of the bullying/intimidation of others; whether past or currently ongoing as these matters are dealt with in a highly confidential fashion.  Bullying and/or harassment complaints are often contained to a Senior Supervisor, the Principal or members of the Board - certainly complaints are not widely spread among the school community.  It is a nonsense for a letter such as this to comment on the absence of bullying in the workplace as it does.  

This letter contains assertions and allegations about matters it could not nor should not know if the author is truly a member of staff.

While on the subject of bullying, let's come at this from another direction.  Nothing would be a more typical example of bullying than a letter that denies bullying/intimidation of those who have been subject to this treatment.    Nothing would be a more typical example of bullying than a letter that uses language such as 'alleges', intimating that no bullying actually occurred, to begin with.  Take the letter as a piece all on its own.  Whoever wrote it, through lack of respect for another's experience of being bullied could be intimated to be bullying by the very language of disrespect being used.

It is a recognised factor that staff turnover, low morale and workplace stress are among symptoms or signs in bullying.  A number of candidates seek to ensure best outcomes for students by promoting a healthy workplace environment; what could be among better focus for staff and students at the the school?

To reiterate, the letter seeks to sully the name of teachers who have been bullied in the workplace and the good intent of a number of nominees. This letter dictates that sentiments of our staff'...(Still waiting for a signature - who are 'our Staff'?), on the matter of workplace bullying is quite different to those being circulated by nominees, identifies these views (regarding workplace bullying) as destructive and damaging and from there 'respectfully' (oh please) suggests that candidates amend their views.

There should be no lack of clarity that this letter is abusing candidates who express concerns as to workplace bullying within the schools.   

So, 

Target One...let's bully the candidates; pressure them among all their peers, impact how they will interact with their Board members going forward and seek to coerce them into amending their messages in front of the school community.

Target Two...let's bully the teachers, sully their reputations, further malign them and cast aspersions upon them in their interactions with candidates.

For those avowing that this is a school without bullying, this missive makes a fine example for the case of bullying existing and why candidates should certainly NOT be amending their agendas.  What a pathetic little piece of correspondence it has proven to be.

FURTHER TO ELECTION INTERFERENCE

And now, once again, (painfully) to the issue of Election Interference.
It's bad enough that an anonymous, unsourced, unattributed letter effectively attacking candidates behind the cloak of invisibility finds its way into the election process, but it's beyond shameful that the letter is distributed by the hand of Yeshivah itself.  
Yeshivah says it runs a clean election but it sends out this unmitigated piece of rubbish, this wolf dressed up in lamb's clothing and to add insult to injury, crowns it with the fine words of Mr Yudi New on the way out the door.
  

In his cover note to the candidates,  I quote... 

'...please be aware that the staff have chosen to communicate their views in this respectful manner, rather than taking steps that could be seen to be influencing the election....

Mr New has lent his   authority as the individual running the election that these are respectful views, to be treated with respect and have not been designed to influence the election.  

Nothing could be further from the truth in every regard.   

Sending out such a letter is a direct attempt to influence the process.  For Mr New to be party to this is far from acceptable.

To suggest that these are views being communicated in a 'respectful' manner, is breathtaking, (not in a good way). Further, the crux of the letter is that the author patently seeks that candidates amend their agendas - how could this possibly be interpreted as not seeking to be influencing the election? 

  

By now, everyone at Yeshivah should know better.

WHOM DO YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR?

A word as to information on voting processes authorised by the CIVL and YBRSL Boards and signed off on by Company Secretary, Nussen Ainsworth.  This information, or misinformation as the case may be, is being distributed within the Explanatory notes accompanying the Notice of the Annual General Meetings.
Reflecting one of the poor choices in conceiving these constitutions (A Vote-Less Category) and much to my own chagrin, both CIVL and YBRSL constitutions specify (Clause 20.2.d), that all candidates in the elections lose their entitlement to vote.  
What do the AGM Explanatory notes actually tell members?  I quote:
2.12 Clause 20.2 of CIVL's constitution requires that the election by Members of Board Members will take place as follows:..
     (c) Each member present (whether by proxy, attorney or representative) at the meeting will be entitled to vote for up to four (4) candidates.
    (d) Candidates will not be eligible to vote for themselves.
I draw your attention to note 2.12 (d), because NOWHERE in the Constitution does it specifically state that candidates are not eligible to vote for themselves.
Further to this, it is incorrect as listed above that 'Each member present... will be entitled to vote for up to four candidates'.  
Within the YBRSL AGM directions information that provides that each member will be entitled and able to vote for five candidates is likewise not the case.

What Clause 20.2 (d) actually states is: 
     '(d)...each  Member Present (excluding the candidates) at the annual general meeting will be entitled to vote...'

What the constitution is saying, applicable whether voting on-line or at the AGM, is that candidates have no entitlement to vote for themselves OR anyone else.
A choice has been made to present a misdirection to the entire community as to the intent of the Clause relevant to voting entitlements. How do I know this?  Because Mr Yudi New called me and asked me to identify this clause number for him, the one that related to candidates not being able to vote.  He was clearly aware as to what the constitution stated however this document does NOT reflect that content.

Furthermore - if Yeshivah followed their own system as outlined in these notes, candidates would still receive some number of ballots.  Presumably Yeshivah is running a democratic, secret ballot.  How exactly, if they were allocating votes to candidates, as they suggest they are doing above, would they ensure that those votes were not directed toward the candidate??? 
Either Yeshivah is working in line with the constitution, candidates receive no ballots and no votes and a secret ballot is occurring with the results of no-one's votes or being known;   OR, candidates would receive ballots as per the Yeshivah system noted above which would (??) be in some way marked to identify them or prevent candidates from voting for themselves.  So much for presumption of a secret ballot. 

ANOTHER good reason NOT to vote on line, but to wait for explanation for the entire community and vote at the AGM.

THE DIFFICULTIES ON HOW YOU VOTE

The Proxy

There have been no shortage of queries responding to documentation from Yeshivah,  seeking further information regarding the use of proxy votes.  In short, - there is not a compulsion for the use of an attorney at all to be involved.  Ask a friend or family member (who is not an attorney) to be your proxy if required and you are unlikely to need legal authorisation.

Yeshivah has issued a form that has no areas to note whether the proxy would be an open, directed or most particularly an ongoing proxy as is commonly done when proxy forms are issued.  While many Companies could be relied on to accept Proxy Forms with amendments provided and signed with these indication, under the current circumstances at Yeshivah, I would strongly advise members to contact he Company Secretary of both YBRSL and CIVL, Mr Nussen Ainsworth on this matter as soon as possible and seek a confirmation as to whether Yeshivah companies will/will not accept should the proxy forms be amended by the member to reference this information.

Alternatively, members should request that the Yeshivah companies produce a complete and appropriate Proxy form for member use.

IN CONCLUSION

Yeshivah chose to be active in the distribution of an inappropriate, anonymous letter, regardless from whom it came.  

In the words of Mr New, which suggested that these communications of anonymous bodies are appropriate, respectful and to be respected, it would be interesting to understand how he reached these conclusions.  
Mine would have been that an anonymous letter of this type would have been best filed in the trash.

Time at Yeshivah could have been far better spent seeing closer attention paid to correct information being provided to members within their AGM notes - including fuller Proxy Forms.
Unfortunately, too many Yeshivah Centre  individuals have their heads turned in the wrong directions and their fingers far too deep in pots where they stick in sites they do not belong.
This speaks further to an inherent dismay as to how this election process is playing out day by day.

Something is EXTREMELY ugly in Denmark - or perhaps Hotham Street.

...marcia pinskier (as always)

Elections 102 - More of What Not to Do

In my last post; Elections 101 - What Not to Do, I took up with some issues that I found unsatisfactory.  Handling of the process of the Register of Members, suggestions Yeshivah had made around dissemination of candidate communications to voters and provision, (or lack of) due diligence materials.

I'll be honest - nothing would make me happier than to see a response to the time I spend writing, to the responses I am receiving, than to see Yeshivah take it on the chin, suck it up and get their house in order.  

When the following correspondence comes out however, sent 21 November 2016 from Yudi New to the Yeshivah community and titled Elections:  Our Processes it's an insult to the voters AND the candidates.  

I invite you to compare what's been happening over the last few days with the content of this letter, as well as to the direct quotations I'm going to provide that are extracts from a letter distributed to the YBRSL Board candidates on 17 November 2016, just 3 days earlier, from Jeremy Gold, with the subject YBRSL Nomination - next steps. 

(Excerpts from Yudi's letter are in green, from Jeremy's in blue).

1) in accordance with the constitutions and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) all members who request are given access to inspect the Register of Members and provided with a copy...(Yudi New)  In fact, as has been outlined in the previous post, Elections 101 - multiple members who requested access to inspect and copy the Register of Members were NOT given access to do so in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).  

...You will appreciate that we have taken some precautions to protect your privacy... (Yudi New)  This is particularly disingenuous as statements go because the Register of Members as compiled contains all the email addresses of the members.  These email addresses are not required, have been included and distributed to members with, (as far as I know) no further information whatsoever as to limitations on their use that might exist... such as utilisation for commercial purposes.  

Many organisations would choose to locate this additional information, such as member email contacts on an alternate data base for exactly the reason suggested in this letter, to protect member privacy.  However  by locating this information on the Register of Members it has now become available to every member of the organisation provided with rights to inspect and copy the Register.    Clearly Yeshivah has exercised little forethought and taken few, negligible, (any?) precautions to protect member privacy.  I await to hear just what the 'precautions to protect your privacy' that have been taken are, that are being referred to in this letter.

From there, to the issue of interference with candidate communications with voters.  One can't deny that Jeremy Gold's letter to candidates is unequivocal in advising that Yeshivah requires that Yudi must approve 'anything sent'.
...If you want to send out further material via email to the YBRSL membership, we would require you to do that through us, however, as I am sure you will appreciate, anything sent will need to be approved by Yudi New.   Following approval, we would certainly arrange for an email to be sent.(Jeremy Gold)  17 November   
The follow-up from Yudi,...

2) ...We do not, however, seek to censure or censor what candidates might want to say nor which candidate might be allowed to do so. (Yudi New)  21 November

For someone with no intention to censure nor censor, an environment creating an apparatus to that end is certainly in place.  
As for transparency, it's all well and good for Yudi to send out his letter of the 21st to the community when Yeshivah can rely on the preceding letter having been seen only by candidates.

Yudi's letter of 21 November goes on to deal with matters pertaining to Due Diligence.  I am going to comment minimally here, other than to say candidates continue to request documentation to undertake a Due Diligence and 'ongoing dialogue' from the Board most certainly fails to meet any standard.  While the Board have decided that materials such as those requested would not ordinarily be provided ‘in an election of this type’, I would remind them that a due diligence process pertains NOT to the election but to the organisation.  The Yeshivah organisations are large and complex. It is exactly with these ‘type’ of organisations that a potential director would undertake an appropriate due diligence, in a timely fashion.  While it is the choice of potential directors to make, good practice would have them support these quite appropriate processes with the availability of requested materials.

As Mr New concludes in his letter of 20 November, I take my guidance from him.  He writes, 
‘I recognise that this is a new process and there is a lot of learning for all of us. I remain committed to a fair and transparent process and am confident we are achieving this. If anyone has any questions or concerns, I am more than happy to address these. Please direct them to governance@yeshivahcentre.org.’

What is going wrong here?  Primarily this attitude - the ‘this is a new process and there is a lot of learning for all of us.’  I’m tired as are many others of the suggestion that because this is the first election it doesn't matter that we don’t get it ‘quite right’.  
Not good enough.  We have legislation, we have a constitution, precedents and governance practices; not to mention plenty of individuals with capacity to provide professional assistance.

It’s all very well and good to talk about being committed to fairness and transparency, but if you are going to be responsible for walking the walk you can’t just talk the talk.  Any presumption that an abundance of fairness and transparency  is being achieved, as has been suggested, is far-fetched.  I could point you toward some of the candidates who have much to say about this themselves.

Mr New has invited questions so I’ll finish with some of my own.  I’m an alumni of Beth-Rivkah, a previous teacher and members of my family currently attend the school, but not a member of the company.  So, any members reading, please feel free to pick these up and direct them on to governance@yeshivahcentre.org
I’ld be interested to hear any answers you receive at mpinskier28@gmail.com

1. When will any member see the original Register of Members, as per conditions in the Corporations Act?  As Yeshivah says this has already occurred, can Yeshivah name such a member?
2. What are the precautions that Yeshivah have taken to protect member privacy?
3. When will candidates be provided wth documentation to undertake a due diligence?  What will be provided?
4. When will further details as to management of the elections be distributed?  For example, management of election processes at the AGM?  Further, how will candidates who drop down from criteria elections into the general pool not be favoured or have undue impact as to other candidates?  Will a separate election occur post-announcement of all criteria positions?
5. Talking transparency, I return to the question that Yeshivah continues to ignore.  Who deems themselves fit to be representing YCL and in a position to be nominating  Board appointees on behalf of a legal entity that does not yet exist?
6. When will YCL be registered?
7. How many non-voting members are there in each organisation?

As for your vote, I again advise, wait for your answers - wait for your AGM.

..marcia pinskier

Elections 101 - What Not To Do

There has a been a powerful call for improved accountability and transparency, but what is consistently playing out is 'more of the same'.  Firstly, a pattern from the Yeshivah leadership of re-iterating past behaviours of withholding.  In this instance with-holding information to which individuals are unequivocally entitled.  Frustrating and dis-empowering candidates standing for positions on the Boards, along with the new company members, the voters and community members at large.

It should be clear that responsibility to attend to the obligations I am going to write about sits with members of the Interim Boards of the relevant company, but included in some of these matters additional responsibility will sit with 'agents' of the Board.  I mention this because our organisations have been re-structured as companies within the Corporations Act.  There are inherent responsibilities to members detailed within the Act.   Breaches of the Act may carry penalties and those on Boards now, as with candidates for Boards to come should respect and understand that these obligations are not to be ignored. 

REGISTER OF MEMBERS

There have been a series of requests from candidates to the current (Interim) Boards of YBRSL/CIVL to sight the Register of Members  of these organisations. The law is quite straightforward in how it addresses this matter.  (I've provided some of the relevant Sections from the Corporations Act 2001 at the base of this post, for those who may be interested.) Though it includes some exemptions and additional clauses, the points below are by and large applicable in this instance.  

What do we learn from the the Corporations Act, 2001?

• The company must allow a member to inspect a Register of Members. 
• If the register is not kept on a computer, the person inspects the register itself.
• If the register  is kept on a computer, the person inspects the register by computer.
• If  a person asks in writing to inspect a particular book of the company that the person has a right to inspect, the company must make it available within 7 days.
• The company or scheme must give a person a copy of the register within 7 days.
• A person permitted by this Act to inspect a book may make copies of, or take extracts from, the book. 
• Any person who refuses or fails to allow a person so permitted to make a copy of, or take an extract from, the book is guilty of an offence.

The Act is quite explicit that it is the right of a member,  to inspect the ORIGINAL Register of Members and have copies of the original provided to them, or make copies, themselves.

I have yet to hear from any of those I am aware have asked to inspect and receive copies of the Register of Members, in writing from Yeshivah,that the organisation has met its requirements. To date, I have heard different experiences reported, including the following:

1 - The candidate was provided with a printed spreadsheet list of members' names, and was advised this was a copy of the Membership Register. The copy received had a watermark of the organisation and the candidate's name across all pages. This experience clearly did not meet with legal requirements of entitlement to inspect the original Register.  

It would be a fair presumption that this individual's name is not printed across the page of the original Register, so a copy of the original Register was not received.

2 - This candidate reported a similar experience, but upon receiving the photocopied spreadsheet list with that (different) candidate's name across the copies, asked to see the 'Original Register'. This candidate was then shown a bound 'book'  with printed spreadsheet pages and told this was the Original Register.  

As the book was printed and bound it could not operate as the Membership Register, as such a register must be available for further amendment as membership data changes.  This book coultd not include future members, as well as provide additional information that would be legally required to be added in the future. 

This is supported because the pages within this book were a printed spreadsheet and did not have that candidate's name on the watermark - clearly the pages that candidate was provided with were not a copy of this purported 'original'.  Again, the obligations to provide the candidate with an opportunity to inspect and copy the original were not met.

More to the point, it is quite evident that the Original Register is being maintained as a computer Spreadsheet file.  There is a specific direction during the Act, that should it be the case that the Register is maintained on computer, those requesting to sight the Register are to do so, by computer. 

As far as I am aware, to date this requirement has not been met.  

More than 7 days have now passed since written applications that I have sighted, to inspect and copy the Register were made. 
As far as I am aware, to date this requirement has not been met.   

CANDIDATE RIGHTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS 

One can't let another day go past without mentioning the letter of Thursday 17 November, 2016, to Board candidates from Mr Jeremy Gold of the Yeshivah Centre.  I quote: 

'...If you would like to inspect the membership register, please complete the form attached and send it to Yudi New – governance@yeshivahcentre.org.  The register will be available to be inspected by appointment only at the Yeshivah Centre office.

If you want to send out further material via email to the YBRSL membership, we would require you to do that through us, however, as I am sure you will appreciate, anything sent will need to be approved by Yudi New.  Following approval, we could certainly arrange for an email to be sent...

Jeremy Gold


Head of ICT, Marketing and Communications


Yeshivah Centre
'

If communications and more importantly directions are being distributed to Board candidates regarding the membership register as part of the election process, (which, from my point of view is not doing anybody proud), why, when and how has the Yeshivah Head of ICT, Marketing and Communications been newly deputised to be the liaison with candidates on this matter without so much as an introduction nor explanation?  

Unless of course other's have become freshly awakened to the fact that given the number of mis-steps to date some sideways movement of people may be sensible.  Bring someone new in to share the glory (or the pain)?  So who now in this saga is the source of truth???

Regarding the content of the letter, if it finally did occur to someone at Yeshivah to check out the relevant content of the Act, they would be well aware that it is highly mis-leading, (if not altogether incorrect) to advise candidates that Yeshivah is entitled to impose a requirement that should they wish to send out 'further material via email to the YBRSL membership,'

a) It would be required to be sent out by Yeshivah, and

b) It would be required to be approved by Yudi New, or anyone else at Yeshivah for that matter.

Members most certainly DO have rights to utilise the information within the Membership Register if this is relevant to their rights... for example, rights as members canvassing among a membership group to stand as members of the Board.  

Where do I come to with this?   

This controlling of communications by Yeshivah is in fact a form of interference in the election process; so what is playing out at the Yeshivah Centre, whether via the Interim Boards, it's agents or operationals within the Centre is that even in these early stages we are seeing a form of  inappropriate interference.  

I would call on every member of this community to ensure that they demand the best that they can from this process, if only by being timely and temperate in your choices, ensuring your entitlements are met and not being rushed before making your final commitments.  

As part of this I would strongly recommend that members with-hold voting till as late as possible in the process.  

In fact I would recommend voting at the AGM above utilisation of the on-line process - as I understand the involvement of an independent company is solely on hosting the website.    No further information has been issued through Yeshivah Centre as to their own internal involvements and activities as part of the election process.  When voting at the AGM, even if you send in a proxy vote it will compel the Interim Board to organise a transparent voting process to be organised and explained prior to the night.
In fact even now, 'a moment' before electronic voting is meant to be available, Yeshivah has failed to communicate the process of voting.  While Yeshivah have indicated that the election will take place 'in stages' to consider the requirements of the Board specifics, will professionals who aren't elected in their category be included in the voting in the broader section?  Will Rabbis who aren't elected in their category be included in the voting in the broader section?  

While this information is available in the Constitutions, it is incomprehensible that voting is about to take place while these processes have not been laid out for the electorate.  So again I urge you, give Yeshivah a fortnight to get it's house in order and either hold off voting till the last days of the electronic vote - or preferably, attend your organisations' Inaugural Annual General Meeting and vote in person.

DUE DILIGENCE 

Before I close, the community should be aware that numerous candidates are clamouring for appropriate materials from the Interim Boards to undertake a Due Diligence.  This speaks of preparedness, good judgement and reflects focus on appropriate actions that a suitable Director of the Yeshivah Boards will need.  

WHERE ARE THESE MATERIALS?

A pack, at the very least a set of preliminary materials should have been ready at least a week ago.  Such a pack should be available now.  Audited reports for the last 5 years.  Detailed Insurance policies.  Detailed reports as to the progress and financial outcomes of the Redress Schemes.  Minutes of the Interim Board meetings since registration and the N.I.Committee over the previous 12 months.    Full financials reports as submitted to these committees for the previous 12 months.  Third party contracts.  Any legal issues.  The Risk Matrix as it exists.  It is entirely appropriate that recipients sign appropriate confidentiality agreements empowering them to source suitable advice as they deem necessary, but enough is enough - provide the Due Diligence materials!

Was it a secret that an election was to be held?  Has no-one mentioned this to any members of the Interim Boards?  A full and detailed pack must be made ready for all candidates with all further information requested and/or required by the day the election results are called because it is quite possible that a number of those elected may undertake their due diligence and decide not to move forward.  In which case a count back will be necessary and it will be required speedily to facilitate the full operations of the Board.

This is not an election matter but one to which the Interim Board must attend.  It has nothing to do with anyone else.  The Interim Board must sit down and facilitate the arrangements of these matters as part of their responsibility for the smooth transition the companies will require.  They alone are currently privy to most of this information, they have an authority that is owned by none of them alone but is owned only by them acting together.   It is required that they act as a Board on this matter, to meet, discuss how and when various items will be released.  

...and in conclusion

We are barely days out from the beginning of a series of elections, crucial to the future of Yeshivah and all her community.
The Interim Board has failed to provide reasonable information and assistance regarding processes to voters and candidates in a timely fashion. The Interim Board has failed to provide reasonable and appropriate information to allow candidates to make an informed decision as to the state of affairs at Yeshivah.    

...marcia pinskier

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2001   

SECT 173 - Right to inspect and get copies

SECT 1300 - Inspection of books

SECT 174  - Agent's obligations
                                                                                                      
SECT 177  - Use of Information on registers   (Candidate's rights to communicate with members)

Answer a Puzzle; A New Vote-less Category

Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull. 

Living in democracies and regardless of their political points of view, they all have a privilege that Yeshivah doesn't appear to believe should be extended to those standing as candidates in elections.

Check out Clause 20.2 - ELECTION PROCESS, same clause in both the CIVL and YBRSL constitutions, for the latest intolerable, infuriating practice.    You'll find (d) smartly and specifically excludes all standing candidates from an entitlement to vote.

Where do I begin???

It's not the first time I've written about the paramount privilege as a member of an organisation being the entitlement to vote.    However once again, something is amiss.  For those willing to step forward and toss their hats in the ring, to contend for leadership in the organisations, for some bizarre reason, we see a newly formed category of vote-less members.

And for those (which millennia are they from?) who still believe that a candidate shouldn't vote for themselves...well if there is an entitlement in both YBR and CIVL to vote for several additional candidates above one position - how is it that a candidate has no right to participate in an election as to who should hold these alternate positions?

Let's not forget the possibility that a candidate will lose altogether - and lets accept it, someone has to. So now we have a nominee who 'gave it a go'.  What was their sole outcome?  They lost all rights and privileges they may have had to contribute at all to the quality of leadership, to who SHOULD be a new member of a particular board!    Hundreds had a say... but not the candidate.  By virtue of their care and concern, these individuals lost all entitlements to contribute to a voice in the leadership of that organisation at all.  If that wouldn't put you off standing, I don't know what would.

                              *                             *                                 *

In the meantime, I have no intention of dropping the baby or the bath-water.   While the bulk of the community seeks to come to grips with the newly established constitutions and the processes required for legitimate investiture of new leadership - there continues to have been no comment by the 'faceless individuals' who have inappropriately designated appointees to the YBRSL Board, in the 'pretence' of being members of the Board of YCL.  

Just how long will it take for these people to get the message that their behaviour is neither tolerable nor acceptable?  This is a community preparing to participate in its first mandated elections and this old, self-serving culture, needs to be done with.  

What about the appointee?  What does this individual think about naming the manner in which he/she was approached?  Nothing like some sunshine to clean out the grime and the slightest whiff of culpability.

...marcia pinskier

Removing Entitlements - A Puzzle

A quickie for readers today.

Elections are done in the U.S. - (I don't think I could bear to reflect on this further), but that can only provide further energy and attention to what's going on in our own home town.

While moving away from the U.S., as promised, I won't be moving away from issues I've been addressing in past blogs, Elections Going Under and Waiting for Answers.  I continue to anticipate that those responsible stand up - or stand down.  It's time for those at fault to do so.

In the meantime, should you have a copy of your constitution in hand, I'm going to be re-visiting what I consider to be the paramount entitlement of membership - the right to vote... discussed previously in Why Be a Member?  

Somewhere in the very comparable extracts below, from the YBRSL and CIVL constitutions is a clause that you can guarantee had me spitting chips - once again disenfranchising members of the community.  (For those who don't have constitutions handy, they can check out the images below).    This problem was discussed with Mr Yudi New prior to the community being informed that there had been constitutional amendments made - for whatever reason this was not considered important enough to likewise be amended... (among a series of other problematic clauses).

But I digress...   the clause is yours to find...  Which is the clause designed to remove entitlements where they should exist?   Further thoughts on this matter?
Happy to receive 'civil' responses at mpinskier28@gmail.com

...marcia pinskier


Extract from the YBRSL constitution:

Extract from the CIVL constitution:

Waiting for Answers

I attended a heart-warming community function tonight.  It's a joy to see how a community can and will come together to celebrate the best of life.    But that doesn't excuse the worst that is still happening.  If it's not addressed we'll all be stuck with what we've been fighting to see the back of.

While there seems to be (sadly enough) a constant and fresh focus to regularly turn my attention to, I was quite serious when last I wrote:    

'The community will not be so easily fooled and deserves to know - Who believes they had the misplaced authority to appoint individuals to community boards in the name of YCL?'

I've indicated that this is NOT a question that will go way - and I for one am not going to walk away from it.  

I'll say it again and will continue to do so.                                                                                      

What is the MOST important transition that has occurred for members of this community?  What is the MOST important change to which past leaders have finally been compelled to concede?

Prior to the Royal Commission there was no membership in the community companies/organisations.  Without membership in a company/organization there were no rights, no entitlements.  You could complain, reach out (as hundreds did) and seek advocacy or relief - but the reality was that without membership individuals had no rights whatsoever.    For all the bad behaviour, there was nothing to compel committee members to respond.  They weren't obligated to pay attention to anyone, should they choose not to do so.  School parents, victims of sexual abuse, families of the abused and others across the community who looked to leadership for connection, engagement and support shared a repeated experience...they were disregarded or ignored.   An example of poor leadership values but in the circumstances, you didn't have the rights of a member and that was the end of the matter. 

It should be clear, emphatic and unequivocal - times have changed.  Yeshivah has been waiting almost two years for compliant constitutions.  With compliant constitutions and an election and leadership process that should be undertaken in line with this compliance, the community will source their leaders in a transparent fashion.  Or so we should be entitled.

The constitutions, for all their flaws, are documents that protect the rights of their members.  They protect the rights of this community.  They place legal obligations on those in positions of authority.  And they enable those who have abused authority, whatever their position, to be held accountable.

So I will return to my question as I have no intention from resiling till I see it addressed on behalf of the community.  Who is presuming to appoint individuals to Boards in the name of a yet to exist company?   Who still believes they own this community?  Who still believes they are living in olden times and that everything will go away if heads are buried in the sand?

...marcia pinskier