Following on from my previous post, we have been asked why
the existing permanent dance organising teams are not running the Centenary of
Canberra Shearers Ball and Federation Ball.
The team that would have run the events spent a great deal
of time trying to form a business-like working arrangement based on clear division
of responsibilities and accountability, but in the end were forced to say
"no". In fact they voted 10 to 2 to say "no", reluctantly
but resoundingly.
I have heard it said that they voted no because I told them
to. What nonsense. It was a carefully considered e-mail vote and my role was as
an impartial convenor hearing all sides of the argument and counting votes.
I was a bit hampered in my normal role as chair of making
sure decisions were fully informed, because I had signed a confidentiality agreement
that had to be signed in hard copy (pen and paper no electronic facsimile
allowed) and we were an email based team. But I think the team made a
sufficiently well informed decision, without my disclosing confidential information.
Some of their reasons for saying no were
- Difficulty in obtaining information. When it was obtained,
it indicated that the required event was not as expected, with content stipulations
that were not in keeping with our ideas for the event.
- Lack of confidence in the MFS Committee and other's
ability to delegate and manage. The probability of an impasse occurring
following an attempt to change our decisions about the event.
- Rushed decisions make for untold problems.
- Impossible and contradictory demands being made.
- Suggestion that the convenor should proceed without
consulting the team, because of time pressure and confidentiality, was
unacceptable in an open transparent and democratic team, and would not be
informed by the team wisdom.
- All the evidence was against this being a well-managed
environment in which to work.
There were of course equally many arguments in favour of
continuing, but the point is to explain the decision not revisit it.
Regards
Lance
If anyone would like to discuss an alternative view of this situation more closely reflecting the commercial requirements of the procurement by the ACT Government for the Kick Up Your Heels program then I would be happy to discuss. The lack of trust, or competency, of other MFS members implied by Lance is quite incorrect and scurilous.
ReplyDeleteColin Towns
Lance you are in good company. I too, have been branded scurrilous, after I suggested that the MFS was non compliant with the law by claiming that an unaudited group was part of the society, and that any public liability claim from that group was at risk of being disowned by the MFS insurers. But then maybe I have misunderstood the meaning of the misspelling of the word "scurrilous".
ReplyDeleteMaybe this other usage may be applied to someone who does the right thing, that is not in the interest of the other person.