Well, Ralph, that was a bit premature. Today Otago Natural History Trust members received a second notice about the special and annual general meetings; this time with the full text of the proposed rule change (and too late for the 21 day minimum notice required for a special general meeting; but heck, what are rules for if not to be broken?). And yes, it does aim to enable the trust to appoint up to three unelected board members and give them full voting rights. This comes with a raft of checks and balances – you’d think the board didn’t trust itself to appoint the right people. These include
- An appointment under 4.1.5 of these rules shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets out explicitly the aspirations, rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the governance of the ONHT Trust and an understanding of their respective roles in the operation of the Trust.
- An organization invited to nominate a representative shall advise or reconfirm in writing, the name of their representative to the Trust secretary not less than 10 days prior to the Annual General Meeting each year. At the Annual General Meeting, Trust members will be advised of the names of the nominees. The acceptance of the nominee’s appointment to the ONHT Board, will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld
Unfortunately, checks and balances notwithstanding, there’s no guarantee that Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki won’t use coercion again to ensure itself a place on the board (appointments will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld – by whose standards?) or to otherwise further its own political interests. What use is a Memorandum of Understanding between the trust and an appointee if the trust board can’t or won’t enforce its provisions? Or if the appointee won’t sign it, as the runaka haven’t with the one drafted for them in 2010?
ONHT members are still faced with an awful dilemma. If they vote against the rule change, will the runaka take utu by turning down species translocation proposals, thus controlling the ecological (and probably financial) viability of the ecosanctuary? Or, if members vote for the proposal, will the runaka control the future direction of the ecosanctuary anyway by continuing to use threats to get their own way at the board table?
