top of page
top

E.A. & Branches, Opinion 2020 

'Stuff ' just keeps dissappearing on Facebook and Forums!
'Stuff ' just keeps dissappearing on Facebook and Forums!
Page 12 (This page)

|   2020       |    2015,2012  | 2010-2018  |    2014-2018 |    History      |   2020 -V.A.  |   2020 -V.A.  |     2020      |   Branches    |  Branches  |

| 2020-2021 |    2022        | 2012-2022   |    Comment   |  Dec 2021    |     2022        |                    FEBRUARY  2022            |

Yes, dear members the explanation is wordy, this is a complicated process. You have been well and truly 'out-foxed' before, this time BE PREPARED.

Rest assured that it will take you less time to read this than it took me to research it and add it to this website

UNCONVINCED? Read this first then.

SHORT VERSION OF THIS INFORMATION

wire.png
AIM

THE ROAD TO REFORM E.A. 

The Aim of E.A. Reform - A Member focused , served and driven organisation.

Complete reform of the governance, processes, structure of E.A. based on the requirements and input, on-going, of the grass roots members who are recognised as the reason E.A. exists.

 

To generate results :

  1. a balanced , equitable and fair focus on the different segments of competitive equestrian sports engaged in by the E.A. members,

  2. a Board that is required to listen to members input and implement majority suggestion where feasible (and if not feasible ; comprehensive, verifiable reasons given), with direct pathways for members input, not just at AGM's and SGM's.

  3. a board that is accountable to the members with consequences for failing members,

  4. a board and C.E.O  that members can trust and respect, with no unsavory baggage,

  5. members knowing where they stand (clear definitions) regarding rules, impartiality, feasibility, vested interests, fairness, failing members, transparency, members rights, legal rights,etc.,

  6. clear, frequent, information rich and timely communication from the Board and Sub Committees  (or other governance groups) to the membership, with specific reasons given for decisions.

  7. a rationalised, efficient national structure that aims at directing expenditure back to the members sport rather than management, staff and lawyers.

  8. an organisation that has a legal structure that protects creditors, staff, members and the board.

  9. a constitution that empowers all of the above and favors the majority of members.

  10.  elections where representatives and board members make their position on issues clear.

My suggestions encompass :

What is possible legally under the applicable legislation and the current E.A. constitution.

The logical sequences, steps, wording, procedures and processes required to achieve the outcome

Please note that Horses Mouth has no legal qualifications, these suggestions are a result of extensive research, long term exposure to E.A. and the Branches and using my brain

wire.png
generate
measure
ReformM
3_options
1_OVERVIEW
SR_1
OFFICIAL_COMPLAINT

3 OPTIONS - IT'S A TWISTY ROAD

Reform will probably require attempting all 3 options in succession,  due to the 'road blocks' outlined on page 11.  As I see it, and have outlined on this site (with multiple E.A. Document clause references, ASIC, Sport Australia etc )

Naturally the format and Constitutional requirements for the motions will have to be followed to a 'T' and then some.

STEP 1                                       SOFT OPTION     

Click to see first draft of these motions and further explanations

SPECIAL RESOLUTION  NO 1- Remove Clause 40 from the E.A. Constitution

  • Aim of this Special Resolution-

  • 1 Vote 1 Member,

  • hand back E.A. to the members,

  • facilitate full reform and restructure without the State Branches ability to block.

SCENARIO - IF / WHEN  the resolution fails due to State Branches / E.A. refuses tabling Special Resolution 1 at the AGM / SGM/ any other reason for failure

 

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT- Call on the E.A. Board to remove Clause 40 and sanction those  State Branches that insisted on retaining clause 40 (ref Special Resolution)

THEN IF SUCCESSFUL IN REMOVING CLAUSE 40

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS - MULTIPLE - REVISE THE EA CONSTITUTION & RESTRUCTURE - INCLUDING ALL CLAUSES THAT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL POWER TO THE STATE BRANCHES , NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE ETC.

To be implemented when all challenges to Special Resolution 1 and the Official Complaint have been exhausted - 

Revise the E.A. Constitution and other policies and agreements

MOVE ON TO STEP 2 if required.

Based on the Boards actions during Step 1 this may / may not be required

WHY BOTHER WITH STEP 1 ?

Because failure of due process and fairness could be used to block the harder options where the soft option wasn't offered first. Give them a chance to co-operate - Steps 2 and 3 are the "or else" options if they don't. Special Resolution 1 sets up the State Branches to commit a fresh infraction of the Corporations Act and the EA Constitution allowing the Official Complaint to be lodged within the required 14 days. Also, if by any remote chance, the members take this issue to court; the court takes a dim view of members of companies limited by guarantee not helping themselves using all actions open to them before resorting to court.

STEP 1 SPECIAL RESOLUTION - Due process ,Soft Option- Gives the State Branches and/ or the E.A. Board an opportunity to back down /show their true colours. 

  • There will probably be a time gap between motions being carried and enacting them, the State Branches and E.A. will likely protest the legality . Natural justice and the law probably require that the Branches are given the time and option to utilise the measures open to them to block implementing special resolutions and motions; assuming they are carried by members at the meeting

  • If State Branches try to use their Veto power to retain clause 40, this action will evidence our other arguments.

 

  • If sincere, State Branches vague undertakings to not use the Veto clause should see them posing no impediment to removing Clause 40, by the Branches voting to support removing the clause; and afterwards not using Clause 40 (circular argument, I know) to block its removal.

 

  • It is probable that the State Branches either individually or Jointly 'lawyer up' and/or the E.A Board will also 'lawyer up'; using members funds to fight their own members. It would be refreshing if the lawyers advice fell on the side of the members. Either way the State Boards will owe (and be asked for by) Participating Members a comprehensive explanation of the legal impediments to removing Clause 40 or the other motions as suggested in Step 1.

THE E.A. BOARD COULD CO-OPERATE WITH MEMBERS IF THEY CHOOSE TO

​The E.A. Board under the current E.A. Constitution and the Corporations Act, has no enforceable duty to act on members input. Members motions are termed non enforceable suggestions if they refer to a governance issue, therefore any motion that can be interpreted as a direction regarding E.A. governance can legally be ignored by the E.A. Board. This is why an Official Complaint will require action and can be escalated on several levels within E.A. Unfortunately, one of those levels is possibly not the Sport Integrity Tribunal. However, the Boards actions regarding this complaint could be viewed as bullying members; then it would fall within their jurisdiction. This does not preclude the E.A. Board making the decision to co-operate with Participating Members. If the Corporations Act excuse is offered by the E.A. Board as an explanation, there's no point trying other motions that rely on the Boards co-operation.

'What If Actions' i.e. Step 1 fails- MOVE ON-

STEP 2​

IF THE OFFICIAL COMPLAINT FAILS - MOVE ON TO STEP 2   

Expel each member of the EA Board. These are motions that the Board must obey, the Corporations Act is clear in how this process must be executed. There is a time lag and many issues regarding members ability to vote for a member friendly board. 

STEP 3

MOVE ON TO STEP 3 

AVOIDING THE COURT ROUTE 

Currently, other than mediation, the only way members can legally, under the Corporations Act ,challenge board decisions is in court when mediation fails. Essentially the Corporations Act and Constitution offer no 'cheap' ways to allow Participating Members input.

Members will not want to lodge a member funded court battle against E.A. to achieve their aims, especially where E.A. can use the organisation funds (largely generated by members) to fight their members in court. (Remember this for Constitutional Reform!). If E.A. and/or State Branch opposition offers no other option for Members to achieve reform of their organisation, there is no other (cheap) option, but as previously stated the court takes a dim view of members of companies limited by guarantee not helping themselves using all actions open to them before resorting to court.

1 Shoe orange.jpg
1 Shoe orange.jpg
2 shoe_green.jpg
3 shoe_brown.jpg
feather2.png
2 shoe_green.jpg
3 shoe_brown.jpg
wire.png
fail
law
cooperate
WHY_BOTHER
restructure
CIRCULAR
stumble
sequence
STEP2

STEP 2 

FIRMER OPTION

MOTIONS (X9) TO REMOVE EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE E.A. BOARD

 The Members remove each director of E.A. in the manner prescribed by the Corporations Act Division 3 - 203D

Note - this motion will involve new Board elections. Be careful that all the new Board Members are solidly behind reforming E.A. and will not oppose the re-submission of the following motions seen in Step 1

Unfortunately the E.A. Constitution and Corporations Act place many blocks to members achieving a 'member friendly board'.

 

  • If the director was appointed to represent the interests of particular shareholders, the resolution to remove the director does not take effect until a replacement to represent their interests has been appointed.

 

  • Unfortunately the E.A. Constitution requires the Nominations Committee to vet candidates, we know how this goes!

 

  • The Constitution also states that Board Members can appoint Board Members to fill casual vacancies (No member input!) and that E.A. requires a minimum of 4 Board Members to operate.

 

  • The Corporations Act requires :Notice of intention to move resolution for removal of director/s must be given to the company at least 2 months before the meeting is to be held.

THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT WILL PROBABLY PREVENT REFORM

IMO it all circles back to the E.A. Constitution and clause 40,and without removing / restructuring the Nominations Committee and reducing the State Branches many other constitutional increases of power beyond the individual members, members will get more of the same type of Board Members.

IF, A MIRACLE OCCURS AND A MEMBER FRIENDLY BOARD IS APPOINTED :

Then we go back and re table  SPECIAL RESOLUTION 1  and if this fails again re lodge the OFFICIAL COMPLAINT , hopefully under a more 'Member Friendly' tribunal. Only if Clause 40 is removed can we progress onto :

SUCCESS? - MULTIPLE SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS  - Reform the structure of E.A and the E.A. Constitution 

IF /WHEN THIS MOVE FAILS THERE IS REALY ONLY ONE OTHER ACTION :

STEP 3

KICK EA OUT.gif
2 shoe_green.jpg
wire.png
STEP 3
LAST_RESORT

STEP 3

HARD LINE SERIOUS

NO MOTIONS TO E.A. REQUIRED - MEMBERS ACTION

The state branch members stop paying their memberships of their state branches on their renewal dates in a coordinated action, with a new organisation functional and ready to take over equestrian sport administration in Australia. Functional enough to allow competitions to commence under their jurisdiction.

This move will only work if the majority of State Branch members are solidly behind this action and will act accordingly, quit their State Branch and pay membership to the new organisation. It is reasonable that they will only support this move if there is a functional organisation in place to take on the E.A. functions

 

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS OPTION

Reasons why this may be the best option

Before you  completely discard this option,  take time to read how it could be executed as smoothly as possible with replacement services, competitions, policies and affiliations in place, a new organisation in place that is controlled by the members.

boxing gloves.png
3 shoe_brown.jpg
first ribbon.png
wire.png

Once this has been achieved the impediments to reform have been removed,  real democratic restructure can begin with the individual members having direct input 

bottom of page