PROPOSAL TO CHANGE GOLF QUEENSLAND VOTING RIGHTS. Background

Transcription

1 PROPOSAL TO CHANGE GOLF QUEENSLAND VOTING RIGHTS Background The Board of Golf Queensland (GQ) believes that the voting rights in the current constitution are discriminatory and inequitable. This view is shared by our legal advisers and some districts. On 1 December 2017, this was discussed with district representatives at the Golf Queensland General Meeting. There appeared to be a strong desire to change the current voting rights. The following paper outlines the current voting rights, provides information on other models, and suggests a new model which tries to address concerns raised. We would ask each district to read this paper and answer the following questions: Would you vote in favour of the proposed new model? If not, why not and what model would you suggest instead? We ask that districts respond to the above questions by 31 March This will allow time for GQ to analyse the responses and determine if there is sufficient support to change the voting rights. Please provide your responses to Matthew Sedgman, GQ s Finance & Business Manager, at matt@golfqueensland.org.au. If you have any questions, you can contact Matthew at the same address or on (07) If there is sufficient support, it is our intention to put forward a motion to change the relevant section of the constitution at the Golf Queensland General Meeting to be held on 18 May If there is not sufficient support, the matter will be discussed further at the General Meeting. Kind regards, Matthew Toomey Board Member Golf Queensland

2 Why are voting rights important? Districts are required to vote for the following reasons: When electing the Board of Golf Queensland; When changing the constitution of Golf Queensland (a 75% majority is required); When voting to increase affiliation fees by more than 5% in any one year (a 50% majority is required); and When voting on any other resolution moved by the district members (a 50% majority is required). How do the current voting rights work? The current GQ constitution specifies the following in terms of voting rights: A men s only district is entitled to one vote for each 4,000 (or part thereof) affiliated players; A women s only district is entitled to one vote for each 2,000 (or part thereof) affiliated players; and An amalgamated district (with both men and women) is entitled to one vote for each 4,000 (or part thereof) affiliated players. Using this methodology, the current voting rights by district are as follows: District Affiliated Players Votes Brisbane District Golf Assoc. (men) 12,110 4 Sunshine Coast & South Burnett District Golf Assoc. (men) 10,044 3 Gold Coast District Golf Assoc. (men) 9,005 3 Golf North Queensland (mixed) 4,175 2 South East Queensland District Golf Assoc. (men) 4,160 2 Brisbane & District Ladies Golf Assoc. (women) 3,845 2 Darling Downs Golf Assoc. (men) 3,093 1 Golf Wide Bay (mixed) 3,027 1 Golf Central Queensland (mixed) 2,972 1 Women s Golf Gold Coast (women) 2,729 2 Sunshine Coast Burnett & District Women s Golf Assoc. (women) 2,453 2 Far North Queensland Golf Assoc. (men) 2,309 1 Moreton District Golf Assoc. (men) 1,740 1 Golf Central Highlights (mixed) 1,180 1 Downs & South Western District Ladies Golf Assoc. (women) Far North Queensland Ladies District Golf Assoc. (women) South West Queensland Golf Assoc. (men) Golf Central West Queensland (mixed)

3 What concerns have been raised with the current voting rights? To prepare an updated constitution for the capitation fee collection changes that were voted upon in 2017, we engaged the services of John Mullins from Mullins Lawyers. John has been a solicitor for more than 35 years and has assisted in drafting constitutions for many Queensland sporting organisations. When looking at the clauses on voting rights, John believed that the current constitution is discriminatory and could be subject to legal challenge if not changed. Similar concerns have recently been raised by some districts. The first issue is that the voting rights are discriminatory against men. By way of example: The Darling Downs Golf Association is a men s only district that has 3,093 affiliated players. It is therefore entitled to one vote. Women s Golf Gold Coast is a women s only district that has 2,729 affiliated players. It is therefore entitled to two votes. Despite having fewer affiliated players, Women s Golf Gold Coast receives an extra vote for the sole reason that its affiliated players are women as opposed to men. This is discriminatory. The second issue is that the voting rights can disadvantage amalgamated districts. By way of example: Clubs in the central Queensland region are covered by a single amalgamated district Golf Central Queensland. There are a total of 2,972 affiliated players 2,464 men and 508 women. The region therefore receives one vote. Clubs in far north Queensland are covered by a separate men s & women s district. The Far North Queensland Golf Assoc. has 2,309 men and the Far North Queensland Ladies District Golf Assoc. has 589 women. The total affiliated players is 2,898. However, as it is split between two districts, the region therefore receives two votes. This anomaly creates a disincentive to amalgamate. If the two Far North Queensland districts were to merge, the region would lose a vote despite having the same number of affiliated players

4 Is there any guidance from other sports? What is a good model? In March 2012, the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) published a set of Sports Guidance Principles which advocate strengthening structures that support good leadership and decision-making, and ensure sound and effective governance. Since 2012, the ASC has gone through an extensive consultation and feedback process on governance in Australian sport. Feedback was obtained from national and state sporting bodies as well as government departments. A further discussion paper was released in June In their discussion papers, the ASC has noted the following: As for voting systems, the ASC considers in general that one-member, one-vote is the fairest and simplest system, but this may not reflect the membership in some cases. The system adopted by Rowing in 2013 is an example of how a sport can balance the contribution of members with an equitable recognition of voting rights. The structure, although proportional, does not allow a small minority of members to hold the voting power for the entire sport and so creates a fairer whole-of-sport decision making process. The ASC understands that there will need to be some flexibility in how each sport finalises their voting rights based on issues such as their unique culture, membership distribution, business dynamic, growth potential, international structure, scale and sophistication. What is the logic for using the one-member, one-vote model? An example used by the ASC in terms of one member, one vote is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Each country gets one vote to exercise in democratic decisions, irrespective of the country s size, financial contributions, or influence in the world. The German Football Association (with 6.3 million participants) gets one vote whilst the British Virgin Islands (435 participants) also gets one vote. Other examples are the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and Major League Baseball (MLB) in the United States. All stakeholders stand equal with large and wealthy clubs have the same vote as the new and smaller clubs. Despite private ownership of these clubs in the US (a different model to the majority of Australian professional sporting clubs), the need for equality is recognised within these competitions. These structures exist because the concept of partnerships between stakeholders is critical as notfor-profit national sporting organisations rely heavily upon members associations to deliver strategy. It is important in sport to have intensified attention to symbolism and fairness in voting to ensure the interests of all members, and therefore the beneficiaries, are accommodated. Where members are assigned differing proportions of votes, the symbolism of equality can be eroded

5 What is the logic for not using the one-member, one-vote model? The one member, one vote system poses its own set of challenges. The system does not recognise the significant contribution that larger states continue to make to the growth of many Australian sports. It can also be seen to create a risk of distorting the views of the membership within an environment where vastly smaller states or territories are given equal voting representation. The following are examples of sporting bodies within Australia that show how other voting structures can work successfully. Example 1 Australian Rugby Union The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) went through a review of its governance in The ARU had a governance framework dominated by two jurisdictions where one held a veto power over other members. In recommending changes to the voting structure, the review proposed to have one vote for each member association plus one additional vote for each member association with more than 50,000 registered players (for a maximum of one additional vote). It was also recommended that each Super Rugby franchise have one vote and another vote be assigned to the players association. The votes linked to participation levels reflected a need to recognise the contributions that New South Wales and Queensland had made and would continue to make to the sport. It would also limit the power of their influence thereby creating a more collaborative approach between partners. Example 2 Golf Australia Golf Australia currently utilises a hybrid model within its own constitution. States receive the following votes: 3 votes (21.4% each) NSW & Victoria 2 votes (14.3% each) Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia 1 vote (7.1% each) Tasmania, Northern Territory This method provides more power to the bigger states (similar to the ARU model) whilst also ensuring that smaller states are sufficiently represented. No state can control more than 21.4% of the votes regardless of the number of affiliated players. Example 3 Golf Victoria All state bodies have a different structure but the Golf Victoria constitution provides an example on how to deal with anomaly between amalgamated vs. non-amalgamated districts. Votes are awarded as follows: Men s districts 3 votes per district; Women s districts 2 votes per district; and Amalgamated district 5 votes per district. This ensures that if two districts amalgamate, that region does not lose any voting power. It is noted that Golf Victoria s constitution also provides votes to metropolitan clubs (as there are no Melbourne districts) and the Victorian Golf League Inc

6 What if Golf Queensland adopted a one-member, one-vote model? As noted above, the ASC leans towards a one member, one vote model. However, this would be difficult to implement within Golf Queensland as we have a mix of men s districts, women s districts and amalgamated districts. As noted previously, the clubs in central Queensland are represented by a single district Golf Central Queensland. However, the clubs in Far North Queensland are represented by two districts Far North Queensland Golf Association and Far North Queensland Ladies District Golf Association. To have one vote per district would still be unfair against amalgamated districts as their regions would be represented by fewer votes. What if Golf Queensland adopted a one vote per affiliated player model? If GQ were to adopt a full proportional voting model, each district would receive one vote for every affiliated player. This would give more power to the more populated districts. Using existing voting rights, the 3 biggest districts (Brisbane men, Sunshine Coast men and Gold Coast men) control 33.3% of the votes. Using proportional voting rights, the same 3 districts would control 48.0% of the votes. It is hard to argue this is in the best interests of golf in Queensland when 3 men s districts (all located in South East Queensland) have almost 50% of the voting rights for the whole state. It goes against the ASC s principle that Large member bodies should never be able to dominate the direction of an organisation. What model is proposed by Golf Queensland? Following discussions with district representatives at the Golf Queensland General Meeting held on 1 December 2017, the following hybrid model is proposed. It works in a similar way to the examples of the Australian Rugby Union, Golf Australia and Golf Victoria and acknowledges that some districts are significantly larger than others (in terms of playing numbers) but that one or two districts should not have the power to dominate decision making. There would be two classes of membership: Amalgamated districts; and Non-amalgamated districts. The only difference between the classes of membership would be in relation to voting rights. This is similar to the constitutions of Golf NSW, Golf Victoria and Golf Western Australia that have separate classes of membership based on club size, club location, district size and district amalgamations (where applicable)

7 For non-amalgamated districts: A district is entitled to one vote for each 4,000 (or part thereof) affiliated players to a maximum of 4 votes. For amalgamated districts: A district is entitled to one vote for each 4,000 (or part thereof) affiliated players to a maximum of 4 votes and A district that has at least 1,000 affiliated players must receive a minimum of 2 votes. This method addresses the two major concerns by: Ensuring that both male affiliated players and female affiliated players are counted equally when determining the voting rights of a district. Ensuring that all amalgamated districts of significant size get at least two votes which would be the case if there were a separate men s and women s district covering the same region. Under this proposed model, no district s voting power changes by more than 3.3% from the current method. Using this methodology, the proposed voting rights by district would be as follows: District Affiliated Players Votes Brisbane District Golf Assoc. (men) 12,110 4 Sunshine Coast & South Burnett District Golf Assoc. (men) 10,044 3 Gold Coast District Golf Assoc. (men) 9,005 3 Golf North Queensland (mixed) 4,175 2 South East Queensland District Golf Assoc. (men) 4,160 2 Brisbane & District Ladies Golf Assoc. (women) 3,845 1 Darling Downs Golf Assoc. (men) 3,093 1 Golf Wide Bay (mixed) 3,027 2 Golf Central Queensland (mixed) 2,972 2 Women s Golf Gold Coast (women) 2,729 1 Sunshine Coast Burnett & District Women s Golf Assoc. (women) 2,453 1 Far North Queensland Golf Assoc. (men) 2,309 1 Moreton District Golf Assoc. (men) 1,740 1 Golf Central Highlights (mixed) 1,180 2 Downs & South Western District Ladies Golf Assoc. (women) Far North Queensland Ladies District Golf Assoc. (women) South West Queensland Golf Assoc. (men) Golf Central West Queensland (mixed) The change from the current percentage voting rights would be as follows: Voting power increased by 3.3% - Golf Central Queensland, Golf Wide Bay, Golf Central Highlands. Voting power decreased by 3.3% - Brisbane & District Ladies Golf Assoc., Women s Golf Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast Burnett & District Women s Golf Assoc. No change all other districts