VOTE NO TO ALL MOTIONS
The Motions put forward by the API Board are ill-conceived and unnecessarily remove important safeguards for members in the Constitution.
Motion 1 - Special Resolution: Categories of Membership
This Motion is unnecessary and removes a key right of members.
The main argument for this Motion is to afford the API greater flexibility to add categories of membership to suit the changing needs of our members.
The API simply does not require this amendment to the Constitution to implement good Membership Policy.
The Board is afforded ample flexibility of amending membership categories every 12 months.
The policy unnecessarily removes the ability of members to have a say in future Membership Policy as is a current Constitutional right.
The continued assertion of the API that there is no intention to remove any Member’s Voting Rights is misleading.
Whilst the Motion does not remove a member’s voting rights, the Motion obviously removes the right of members to vote on membership categories (and their respective voting rights) of the Institute as it proposes to remove them from the Constitution.
It will also have the effect of allowing the Board to determine future voting rights of members (grant or withdraw) under the changes to clause 8.29.
The inconvenience of dealing with members is not a legitimate reason for Constitutional change.
In regards the “changing needs of our members” the facts show that the membership size and composition of the API has remained remarkably stable over the past 10 years and any perceived problem in this area is not solved by this Motion.
Finally, similar professional membership organisations such as RICS, CPA Australia, and the Law Institutes of NSW and Victoria all stipulate membership categories in the Constitutions (or equivalent documents) and thereby afford their members a say in this important matter.
It is my opinion that this Special Resolution has no merit whatsoever and is unnecessary and undesirable, and members should vote against it. The risk is too high and is completely unnecessary.
Motion 2 - Special Resolution: Nomination after maximum tenure
The second Special Resolution seeks to reduce the hiatus period before a director who has served their maximum tenure can re-nominate for the Board from 6 years to 2 years.
This will allow a director to serve 12 out of 14 years which, in my opinion, is not good governance and not ideal regarding Board renewal.
I recommend that members vote against this Special Resolution as it is flawed and may result in an undesirable outcome of stunted Board renewal and entrenched thought and strategy.
Download the paper I prepared that finally elicited an attempt from the API Board to justify these Motions only 1 week from the AGM.
To vote No simply click on the "Proxy Form No Vote" button below to be taken to a pre-populated form that you simply need to insert your name and address, sign and email to email@example.com before 4pm on the 25th May 2020.
Alternatively, register for the AGM Webinar through the API website and vote in person.