auDA already in breach of new minutes policy

[Scott.L]

According to the Gov Review the preferred Governance structure is NFP that doesn't mean 'membership' is included, it could be argued that membership is not required. It's a dangerous attitude for the industry to entertain the idea of auDA being RE-delegated to another entity. And to WHO?

 

[snoopy]

Who can say..."they" (oligarchy) are already preparing the new entity. Their laziness to engage reform is a telling signal.

They probably think they are!

At the end of the day the government is going to can them if a new entity is formed. If the government set up a new entity with some of the same management the minister would look like a fool in the media. The government will roll out what works for the government, not auDA.

The government told us at the Melbourne meet up they would "Hit auDA over the head with a mallet" (exact wording used) if auDa could not reform and I believe that is what will happen.

 

[snoopy]

According to the Gov Review the preferred Governance structure is NFP that doesn't mean 'membership' is included, it could be argued that membership is not required. It's a dangerous attitude for the industry to entertain the idea of auDA being RE-delegated to another entity. And to WHO?

I get the feeling there would be a membership class. Having said that under auDA's proposals the membership would be greatly diminished anyway.

I don't think scrapping auDA is dangerous, just more uncertain. The end result could be better or worse, my thinking is "better" because of a complete management change and the government calling the shots, not existing management.

 

[Scott.L]

But why? Why are they not serious about reforming auDA?

The government told us at the Melbourne meet up they would "Hit auDA over the head with a mallet" (exact wording used) if auDa could not reform and I believe that is what will happen.

what concerns me is that they have not opened any dialogue, its just a spectacle. Talking about paying themselves more for treading water is not the right message to send right now. Look at those minutes, does the CEO even have a report? Do they have a Plan? Do they know what they are doing? if so...show us, communicate your plan, start a meaningful dialogue. I think your right, a spring clean in July is the only true start for reform and even if this is successful, the government will be breathing harder down the necks of those who are drafted through succession. the Board itself appears compromised by 3rd party advisory Boards [if not completely today it will be if the SGM is successful] because no one will know what to do or where to begin. they will turn to Ashurst or someone one else for guidance and expect them to save themselves from it.

The integrity of those individuals are on the chopping block - why risk it, why tempt this fate? What reward are they chasing worth this risk? They are either the guys thrown out of office or they become the guys who destroyed auDA. What does that achieve for themselves or the Directors on the Board? Laughter, ridicule...silence.

 

[snoopy]

But why? Why are they not serious about reforming auDA?

Well it is a very interesting question,

• Have they given up?
• Do you think people will actually vote for these reforms?
• Are they just looking for the best exit possible?
• Are they happy to blame someone else?

I would say that most of the current management does not understand the membership at all so that may well be a big factor. The prior SGM (which was completely avoidable) was a good example of that and I don't think much has changed.

 

[Scott.L]

There is One person, the central person behind this story without prior experience of managing shareholders and or a Membership Org, (at least not found in the public domain) how this person got appointed without this experience baffles me. A very smart guy, articulated, cunning, resourceful, but mistrustful of the power behind the company, its members. (it appears incomprehensible and detestable to him). The fragmentation of the company resulted from this combative play against the members. Now, I think the Board has Stockholm syndrome - LOL

 

[Scott.L]

its just crazy.



and yet,



are we to believe that Governance is not part of the Governance Committee? it is confusion like this that makes you question WTF is going on? Whats the point of a Governance Committee if Leptos is going out for coffee with Ashurst to drum up Governance changes (Payments to Directors on Committees) surely Sandra would be informed by it and that a meeting would be held with Erhan, Tim, and Grant.

 

[Jimboot]

its just crazy.

View attachment 867

and yet,

View attachment 868

are we to believe that Governance is not part of the Governance Committee? it is confusion like this that makes you question WTF is going on? Whats the point of a Governance Committee if Leptos is going out for coffee with Ashurst to drum up Governance changes (Payments to Directors on Committees) surely Sandra would be informed by it and that a meeting would be held with Erhan, Tim, and Grant.

what.the.actual.F?

 

[DomainNames]

How do they explain this to stakeholders and Government?

Should members vote on Directors $$? Members do in other countries.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So the board is trying to arrange an increase in max independent director fees from $70,000 to $170,000 pa.

And it has to go to a vote at the AGM.

Helps explain why the board is trying to get rid of member voted representatives and trying to restrict the ability of members to intervene.

 

[snoopy]

So the board is trying to arrange an increase in max independent director fees from $70,000 to $170,000 pa.

And it has to go to a vote at the AGM.

Helps explain why the board is trying to get rid of member voted representatives and trying to restrict the ability of members to intervene.

Currently the maximum total is $150,000. They want it to go to $170,000. So little doubt if it gets passed at the AGM they'll pass their own motions to increase their salaries (which would not require member approval).

I do also wonder about the super payment/s as this would (already) be pushing remuneration beyond the limits of the $150,000.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

So the directors are or will be in charge of their own remuneration?

I'm sure we can trust them.... oh wait.

Scumbags.