alive and well - Geological Society of Australia

to “consolidate some of its printcollections and relocate or removelesser-used material from branches,” butI wonder if anybody outside the libraryhad any idea of the scale of this cull? Thelibrary claims that “[g]uidelines and policywere developed to assist staff with theprocesses of relocation and removal ofmaterial, and the processing of journals,”but an appropriate de-acquisition policydoes not appear to have been followedin this particular instance. The librarystatement further claims that “[t]heLibrary is making every effort to redressthese errors by working with the Facultyof Science and academic staff in theSchool of Earth Sciences to identify andre-acquire important titles,” but unfortunately,this was an irreplaceable collectionand no amount of remorse and belatedgood intentions will be able to rebuild it.The stable door is well and truly open.I am dismayed at the loss of this valuablecollection and I expect I will not be theonly member of the geological communityto feel this way.It is sadly ironic that the library isnamed the ‘Dorothy Hill Engineering andSciences Library’.TIM MUNSONDarwinDear Sir,Whilst reviewing the literature on thegeomorphology of Uluru (Ayers Rock) andKata Tjuta (the Olgas) for a new geologicalguide book, which has recently beenpublished by Geoscience Australia, (Sweetet al, 2012), it occurred to me that Uluru,Kata Tjuta and, for that matter, Mt Conner,which appear like islands in the desert,may, in fact, have been formed as islandsin a Cretaceous sea and that their presentshapes reflect this influence.A closer look at the geology of the regionshowed that the nearest outcrop ofCretaceous sediments occurs some 330 kmto the east of Mt Conner at Mt Rumbalara.The top of Mt Rumbalara, which containsflat-lying Cretaceous sediments, is aboutthe same height above sea level as thebases of Kata Tjuta, Uluru and Mt Conner.The topography between Mt Rumbalaraand Mt Conner, Uluru and Kata Tjuta isrelatively flat and shows no evidence ofany tectonic disturbance since theCretaceous, so the sea could have reachedmuch further to the west than the presentoutcrop distribution of Cretaceoussediments would indicate. It seemspossible that Mt Conner and further tothe west, Uluru and Kata Tjuta could haveformed as offshore islands in a shallowCretaceous sea.It was considered that this hypothesis wastoo speculative to be included in the guidebook. However, I do think it deserves moreattention, and would like to see moreresearch into this topic. Regretfully, mydays of dashing about in a four-wheeldrive are over, so I hope someone elsemay like to follow this up.Yours Sincerely,IAN CRICKR E F E R E N C E SSweet, IP, Stewart, AJ & Crick, IH, 2012. Uluru andKata Tjuta: a geological guide. Geoscience Australia,Canberra, 63 pp.This letter provides feedback on theprogress report of a Governance Committeethat appeared in the June 2012 issue ofTAG (TAG 163 p. 3–6). The committeesummarises proposed changes to GSAgovernance structure that closely resemblethose of the GSA–AIG [AustralasianInstitute of Geoscientists] mergerproposals that were mooted in 2009.Those proposals envisaged that themerged organisation was to be “governed”by a 12-person Board “elected by themembership at large” and responsible forits “strategic policy”. It is now proposedthat the GSA set up a 9-person “GoverningCouncil”, which “will have responsibilityfor the oversight of strategy, policy andgovernance of the Society” and will be “itsparamount decision-making body”.Many of the points I made in 2009(TAG 152, p. 5–7) in feedback on themerger scheme apply also to these newproposals. While the report proposes majorchanges to GSA governance it fails toexplain clearly why the existing governanceof the GSA is so unsatisfactory asto need major reconstruction, or whatfeatures of the proposed new governancemodel will serve the Society moreeffectively than the one currently in place.After declaring as a predetermined factthat the GSA “must change its governancearrangements” the proposed new model ispresented under the heading “EssentialChanges to GSA Governance; Election ofa Governing Council”. It then states thatcurrent arrangements “do not comply withmany of the mandatory requirements of[the] Associations Incorporation Act 1991”and in particular “do not provide for theelection and functioning of a GoverningCouncil;” and later “[a] new set of legallycompliant Rules is also required” —despite a statement on the GSA websitethat “[t]he Rules of the Geological Societyof Australia comply with the AustralianAssociations Incorporation Act (1991)”.I cannot find in the Australian AssociationsIncorporation Act 1991 (‘the Act’, availableat www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-46/default.asp) any requirement that theGSA must provide for the election andfunctioning of a ‘Governing Council’:indeed, those words do not appear inthe Act. And if there is such a legalrequirement now, why were we beingurged to approve a merger model with a‘Board’ at the top only three years ago?The purposes of the legal advice thataccompanies the Governance Committee’sreport (TAG 163, p. 5) are stated toprovide all members of the GeologicalSociety of Australia with “1. A basicunderstanding of the mandatory legalrequirements imposed upon the Society bythe Associations Incorporations [sic]Act 1991” and “2. A summary of the legalrequirements of the Act not complied withby the current Rules of the Society.”But the wording of that second purposewould more accurately be worded as“2. A summary of amendments to theRules of the Society that would be requiredif the changes to the governance of theGSA proposed by the Governance Committeeare accepted.”This point can be illustrated by two itemsin the advice, under the heading“Mandatory Legal Requirements of theAct”. Under item “2. Powers of theGoverning Council:” it is asserted that“the Rules must clearly state the powers ofthe Governing Council,” while under item“8. Election of Governing Council:” it isasserted that “the Rules … must providefor the election ... of the GoverningCouncil”. As the words ‘GoverningCouncil’ are absent from the Act, and noGovernance Council exists within theGSA, the Society hardly needs legal adviceto tell it that the current Rules do notcomply with requirements that would onlyexist if the proposed governance changeswere accepted.The remaining two points of this letterreflect my personal experience of theGSA — and its governance — rather thanlegalistic analysis.8 |TAG September 2012