The thing about news is that there are many versions of it. This BLOG never aims to represent itself as being the absolute authority on anything. Rather there is a belief that it is much more productive to be engaged in a conversation where views, ideally disparate views, are exchanged and ideas are tested. So against this disclaimer let's chew the fat about this AGM. Since it was held on the eve of The Launceston Cup – heaven forbid – The Examiner is unlikely to report on it and apparently it has not. In any event, it was a meeting about which there are bound to be disparate views given its circumstances.Not to put too fine a point on it there has been some tensions in the air around the 2010 LFS AGM. It has been a long time coming perhaps but group dynamics generally demand that a 'systems flush' be performed from time to time. It could be said that there has been one of those and that a lot of krap has been processed. Anyway it has been a cleansing process one way or the other even if some of the silt is yet to settle.
The new Committee has undertaken to get the election results – with figures – along with 'The Plan and Budget' for 2010, up on the LFS Website as soon as possible – click here to check. Suffice to say as with all election results there will be quite a bit to ponder and especially so in the aftermath of a milestone AGM. That there was an election at all rather than a 'changing of the guard', that it was so vigorously contested and that the AGM meeting was so well attended, all of this is new ground for the LFS. Importantly some new benchmarks have been set.
A new era has been entered and a right of passage has been passed through. It is clear that the membership is large enough to support a number of factions all of which are now more likely to be alert to holding the others to account.
Overall the 2010 Committee can claim to have handed itself a mandate for accountable, transparent and consultative governance that engages with the membership. Just how that is understood and how it will be played out is all somewhat new territory. Time will tell.
Rather than divine the entrails here the comments section below is the space for that. It is day one of a new era, let the commentaries, critiques and prognostications flow.
A new era has been entered and a right of passage has been passed through. It is clear that the membership is large enough to support a number of factions all of which are now more likely to be alert to holding the others to account.
Overall the 2010 Committee can claim to have handed itself a mandate for accountable, transparent and consultative governance that engages with the membership. Just how that is understood and how it will be played out is all somewhat new territory. Time will tell.
Rather than divine the entrails here the comments section below is the space for that. It is day one of a new era, let the commentaries, critiques and prognostications flow.
Posts
5 comments:
Could you please take down the LFS logo?
It is inappropriate for you to use it on your site and disrespectful to the organisation.
Mae was chatting to some LFS members after the meeting and it was agreed that the screening of this week's film was entirely apposite.
Perhaps those challenging respectable and duly constituted authority can learn a lesson from the fate of the Baader-Meinhof crew.
Also Anonymous ... obviously you have not visited the BLOG itself or you are operating on flawed second hand information. If you had been to the BLOG you would not be making this comment.
However, given that the network of people that were, and are likely to continue to BLOG on this site, are in general members of Launceston Film Society, they are entitled to the benefits it offers and a share in the ‘ownership’ of its assets. Even if their individual liability is restricted to $10 other responsibilities need to be acknowledged.
In this context it is entirely appropriate for members to operate under the society’s livery. Arguably it’s a benefit of membership even if the BLOG group’s livery is quite distinguishable from the organisation’s. An expectation of members not to wear the livery of their organisation – not to be a fan – is problematic.
To put this in context, and by way of example, sports clubs encourage their members to wear their club livery and to do so proudly. The film “Looking For Eric” elegantly, and eloquently, demonstrated this. Marketing consultants call this “BRANDING” and “Brand Loyalty”.
Moving forward to the issue of respect and disrespect. Like ‘human love’ this comes with conditions. We expect unconditional love from our pets but in the end that is a fatuous expectation. So too is unconditional respect.
People in the ‘Caring Professions’ (medicos, nurses, et al) are called upon to have UPG (Unconditional Positive Regard) for the patients under their care because it would totally be inappropriate to expect them to ‘love them.’ However, they are obliged to “CARE” and to do so more than superficially.
An organisation’s membership’s expectation that its “representatives” respect them, have UPG for them even, is entirely appropriate even if somewhat unrealistic from time to time.
In its crudest expression it often comes down to “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.” Sometimes a bit of ‘tough love’ is required.
So anonymous I trust that this puts your request in perspective
SORRY, an acronymic slip has occurred. UPG = Unconditional Positive Grading which is code for letting all negative, stupid or dysfunctional behaviour go unchallenged and of course the acronym for Unconditional Positive Regard is UPR. Apologies, but the former is occasionally used as a cynical euphemism for the latter. It is a cruel world.
Comments Feature [LFS.ORG]
Thursday, February 25th, 2010 ... The comments feature is temporarily removed due to technical problems – will be back soon ... Posted in News | No Comments ... One imagines that the restoration will coincide with the posting of AGM Election results??
Post a Comment