The Executive Director must be panicking. She’s now sending last minute emails to the early career members luring them to vote with promises of a board position and three more guaranteed positions on the new Advisory Council to the Board.
What sort of an example is this to set for our future leaders in the society?
The early career position is not only a clever way to ensure another clinical director on the board (as now and in future most early career members will be clinical), but it is also ageist.
People should be nominated and elected on the basis of their expertise and competence – not their age or lack of experience. Early career members have not had the chance to acquire an comprehensive understanding of their profession, or their clients.
It would have been much better to give the position to a rural and remote director.
The Executive Director should also have been removed from the board as it is monstrously powerful position. As we know one person can remain in this powerful position for 17 years, while presidents and general directors come and go. The Executive director has the advantage of vast amount of acquired knowledge about members and knows where all the bodies are buried.
The Corporations Act (2001) warns us against this. In section 2.4 it states:
“The independence of any director who has served on the Board beyond nine years from the date of his first appointment should be subject to particularly rigorous review. In doing so, the Board should also take into account the need for progressive refreshing of the Board. The Board should also explain why any such director should be considered independent.
The executive Director role has become It would have been better to split the Executive Director role into a joint Managing Director of Operations (which is most of the existing Exec Director role) and an accounting treasury role, followed by an upgrading of office staff to be more accountable to the Board through reporting directly to the board – rather than to the Executive Director.”
These new governance proposal does not capture what is really problematic about the APS board. We need a new independent review conducted with a new independent Governance Review Committee (GRC).