Domain trouble: New rules not so clear

 

BY JULIA WADE

The reformation and clarification of new rules to guide the smooth running of a much-loved community asset have some members questioning the running of a current committee.  

Ahead of the upcoming August 12 AGM, Mangawhai Domain Society [MDS] members were invited to attend a Special General Meeting [SGM] on June 17 to sanction or not, new rules proposed by the current Domain Committee [DC]. 

Modified to give clearer guidelines to the governance of MDS and allowing for future decisions and processes to be correctly adhered to, the altered rules also include the use of updated technology such as emails, skype and improved banking features. 

Documentation of the new specifications were registered and stamped on June 25 by the Incorporated Society and are now available for viewing on the Charities Services website.

However, although being unanimously voted and passed by attending members, concern has been raised regarding some of the regulation changes as well as the process of the meeting which was to ‘ratify the proposed rules in their entirety or not at all’, with no allowance for debate.
 
One new rule in question is in regards to the committee-appointed reviewer of accounts, changed from the previous ruling ‘the reviewer/auditor shall not hold any other office in connection to the Society’ to ‘the reviewer may or may not be a member of the Committee’.

A MDS member who has years of experience with the running of charity organisations, says he is genuinely concerned as to how the society is operating.

“Currently the ‘reviewer’ handles the cash, directs the treasurer and then reviews himself – while he is part of the committee,” the member says, who wishes to stay anonymous due to occupational reasons. “That is clearly obviously wrong… the reviewer or auditor as appointed at an AGM must be independent for transparency.”  

While the member agrees with the new committees move to modernise the Society’s rules, he says they should have consulted with members and allowed discussion first.

“The SGM was a yes/no vote and it was made absolutely clear that there would be no discussion on any clauses within the draft rules. There was a lack of consultation with the society’s membership prior to the meeting,” he says. “This committee does not appear to be interested in conducting the Society’s affairs in a consultative way for the benefit of its members or the community, they’ve taken a ‘do it my way or no way’ approach…. which comes across as dictatorial.” 

Furthermore, in accordance to the former MDS rules and compliance with the Charities Act, the 2017-2018 Society accounts were required to be reviewed/audited and presented to members at the August AGM by an independent reviewer. Instead the accounts have been reviewed, and will be presented by, a current committee member who has no accounting qualifications.

“This tells me that a chartered accountant has not been consulted and the committee don’t intend to do so,” he says. “As the accounting in its current form is unlawful, it can’t be accepted or even considered by the committee or its membership. Why is the committee so strongly opposed to an independent audit for 2017 and 2018 which is in accordance with the Society’s rules and the law at that time, or an independent review in the future?”

Although he approached the DC with his concerns and also offered the benefit of his experience, the member says other MDS members would be unaware of his reservations as they were not raised in the SGM. 

Another MDS member who also has experience on committees, says he was ‘put off’ going to the special meeting due to the ‘yes/no’ requirements of the vote and shares a number of doubts about the new rules.

“Especially in regards to committee members electing who will sit for office, this should be done by the general members at the AGM. The way they’ve done it means that five out of the ten committee members can control the whole organisation,” he says. “The other factor is anyone can potentially hold multiple offices, so for example the Chair can be Treasurer and Secretary which to me is basically illegal.”  

In response to members concerns, a DC spokesperson and solicitor stated that prior to the SGM they were not in a position to alter the rules at the meeting as they had already been sent out to members. 

‘But more importantly, the committee felt that it was important for us to get that base set of rules to work from and passed, as it was long overdue... if the need arises, changes can be made as time goes by. It is an oversight that we did not explain that at the time.’

The DC also say for the sake of transparency, the Chairman will directly address questions at the AGM on August 12.

The first member says despite his concerns he supports the direction of the current committee as long as they keep in mind that member’s involvement must be encouraged and listened to and is in accordance with the rules and law.

“This society was born from the brilliant foresight of the locals in 1959 and I appreciate that work done by committee members and the wider membership is voluntary,” he says. “We all want this society to prosper… and go forward positively – it controls a fantastic well-used community asset.” 

The Domain Committee were contacted for more detailed comment regarding the concerns raised. A spokesperson replied saying they would need to discuss the questions raised at a committee meeting however a response was not received before going to print.   

Photo:
As well as concerns regarding the committee, there is also speculation the Domain may be dissolved and fall under the care of Kaipara District Council, due to the possibility of a number of committee members stepping down. 
 

---