alive and well - Geological Society of Australia

The first is that I take pride in mymembership of the Geological Society ofAustralia, and am not aware of anyshortcomings in the arrangements for itsgovernance that could not be rectified byminor adjustments. During my serviceat both Divisional and Federal levels,including a term as President, itsorganisational structure has alwaysappealed to me as admirably democratic.Its broad objective, clearly stated incurrent Rule 2, is well and economicallyworded. Our Society publishes a peerreviewedgeoscience journal (AJES) that isinternationally respected, and circulatesan informative newsletter (TAG). Itprovides for Earth Science conventionsaround Australia, and its Divisional andBranch structure enables States, Territoriesand significant local centres to organisewhatever other meetings and events thattheir initiatives generate. It provides anumbrella for the formation of SpecialistGroups, and also maintains an effectivelystaffed central administrative office.The second of my two final points is basedon a personal egalitarian philosophy, thatwithin any human group with a commonpurpose, power should be distributedwidely throughout its structure. I thereforenote with unease that recent proposals forgovernance changes have evolved fromthe present control of the GSA by aCouncil of some 30 persons, through a12-person ‘Board’ (of the 2009 mergerproposals), to a nine-person ‘GoverningCouncil’. I have already noted that the newbody “will have responsibility for theoversight of strategy, policy andgovernance of the Society” and will be“its paramount decision-making body”:this sounds to me like a massive transferof power to a small group at the top. TheByzantine complexity of the arrangementsfor election/appointment of members ofthe Governing Council is almost beyondbelief. Members should judge the meritof rotational Divisional appointees tothe Governing Council, in which eachDivision in turn has four consecutiveyears in which it has no GoverningCouncil representative, by comparisonwith the Australian Constitution. If anyonewere to suggest that the Constitutionshould be changed so that the Statestake rotational turns to appoint FederalMembers to the Australian Parliament, sothat each State in turn was deprived ofdirect representation in it for a number ofconsecutive years, the suggestion wouldbe, rightly, ridiculed. By analogy, the rightof all Divisions to have continuousrepresentation on the GSA Council is onethat should not be relinquished.ALEC TRENDALLWestern AustraliaI respond to the request for feedback onthe proposed rule changes of the GSA.(I deliberately refrain from using thepompous term ‘Governance Changes’).The current Rules have functioned remarkablywell over the 60-year-life of theSociety.I would be interested to learn why theyapparently complied with the AssociationsIncorporation Act 1991 in 2008 but nottoday (see ‘Rules’ on GSA website). Judgingfrom the Legal Memorandum(TAG 163 p. 5–6) the changes required caneasily be made to the existing Rules underwhich the Society operates.I have very grave concerns whether theproposed Governing Council is a bettermodel than the current Council andExecutive: it is certainly less democraticand inclusive. If we must vote for officers(which I doubt) I would prefer to vote forthe President, Secretary and Treasurermyself, rather than have a GoverningCouncil do that for me. Other societieshave had voting for these positionsfor many years. The downside is thatthis wastes a lot of talent: how manyunsuccessful candidates would wish to benominated a second time only to sufferfurther humiliation (most of us are notso thick-skinned as politicians)? A votingprocedure would be time-consuming andexpensive: the Society has better ways ofspending its resources.A second concern is with the proliferationof committees. I note that only theFinance and Risk Committee is actuallymentioned. It seems to me that thereis a risk of this committee being thetail that wags the dog, dictating thepurse strings in much the same way asFederal and State Treasurers do. Financeshould be an Executive Committeeresponsibility; any advisory bodies shouldbe subservient to that group and rightlynamed ‘sub-committees’.Finally, while there may be a need totinker with some of the Rules to satisfythe legal mind, I see no reason to changethe overall structure of the Society thathas served us well since its foundation.While I hate finishing with a cliché,nevertheless, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.AE COCKBAINSouth PerthCongratulationsRoss!Dr S Ross Taylor of theAustralian NationalUniversity was awardedthe 2012 ShoemakerDistinguished Lunar ScientistAward by the NASA LunarScience Institute. The awardrecognises Dr Taylor’s longhistory of dedication, Image courtesy Ross Taylor.innovation and scientificcontributions to the field of lunar science.TAG September 2012| 9