Thanks for writing this, lots of interesting insights into the proposed structural changes at InternetNZ.
This new constitution really does look like it has been written by and for members of the 'professional managerial class'. The imposition of top-down governance structures with more appointments and less elections is very popular amongst these bureaucratic types, possibly because they fear their brilliant ideas won't win over the membership in open elections?
Also, on your point about organisations being captured by small activist groups, I wonder if this is because it is hard to serve on a committee alongside activist types? With their determination to bring politics into an organisation, they could drive moderate members from their council/board and replace them with more aligned members.
My only personal experience in the charity sector was when I served on the committee of a local music charity for a couple of years, but I quit towards the end of the COVID era. The main factor in my departure was the unrepentant glee that some committee members showed in banning 'anti-vaxxers' from our events. As a whole the committee was pretty moderate, but a few members used very nasty language when referring to the 'anti-vaxxers' in our community.
While there were health and safety issues to consider, I felt banning members (and friends) for their beliefs would fracture our community, and ultimately grew tired of the lengthy political arguments around the committee table. Two other committee members left soon after me, but fortunately the COVID hysteria died down eventually and the committee got back to being relatively apolitical.
Just had a look at the executive team, now I understand!
CEO wears a plastic tiki tied with a boot strap around her neck. This symbol is generally a quick way to evaluate an individuals position on anything from politics to gender to treaty principles…. Without having to waste time researching.
“We’re all on this journey and the only way to get there is together. We’ve all got a part to play in keeping up our momentum. We’ve got a really good idea of where we’re heading, and there are some things we’ll continue to work out along the way. When we get wins and reach milestones, we celebrate them. When things don’t go so well we’ll take the learnings and keep on keeping on.”
When, if ever, will we be spared the PR/ management/civil servants speak?
Many and meaningless woke words from those incapable of constructive simplicity.
Those who might render “The cat sat on the mat” as “The feline creature reposed on the floor covering”.
Early this year, we’ll be developing a Te Tiriti vision for InternetNZ. This will be done at our wānanga with kaimahi (staff), Te Kōmiti Whakauru Māori, DNC Board, and Council. It will be a great step forward in our work centring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and means we'll have a shared understanding of what our journey will deliver over five years. I look forward to sharing news from the wānanga in next month’s edition.
No one seems to have considered the issue of privity of contract.
I have long believed that the so-called "Treaty of Waitangi" is misnamed and you have offered what seems to me to be a reasonable alternative: "...The Treaty was a compact between the Crown on the one hand and the Chiefs of the various tribes on the other. A more generalised description would be that it is a compact between the Crown (represented by the Government)and Maori..."
One description of the difference is: “…Generally speaking, a treaty deals with important aspects of the sovereignty of an independent nation, such as political alliances and economic adjustments. Compacts, on the other hand, are the instruments of quasi-sovereign governments which deal with local and regional matters, non-political in nature…”
Given that no single sovereign nation existed in New Zealand at the time of the "treaty" it would better have been described as a "compact" or simply agreement between the state of Britain and the multiple tribes inhabiting what became known as New Zealand. (The name "Aotearoa" did not exist until imagined by an immigrant of "European" origin.)
InternetNZ advertised recently for a communications manager (ie media handler and press release writer etc). The job description was very heavy on the Treaty and te ao Maori.
There seems to be nothing in the constitution which allows for InternetNZ to cover wireless technology, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G. It could consider whether the 3 G network should be maintained, the effect of 4G and 5G, on human health, and insect life, such as the effect on bees, whether it is dangerous, whether there should be areas that are free of wi-fi, or even times that it is turned off. InternetNZ has a goal of full coverage, without allowing for examination of whether the goal is worthwhile or detrimental. It assumes the goal is worthwhile and does not allow for the possibility of the contrary. The issue of wireless technology seems to be outside the scope of InternetNZ or ignored by it. I expected wireless technology to come under InternetNZ's purview, but it appears to be excluded.
Thanks for writing this, lots of interesting insights into the proposed structural changes at InternetNZ.
This new constitution really does look like it has been written by and for members of the 'professional managerial class'. The imposition of top-down governance structures with more appointments and less elections is very popular amongst these bureaucratic types, possibly because they fear their brilliant ideas won't win over the membership in open elections?
Also, on your point about organisations being captured by small activist groups, I wonder if this is because it is hard to serve on a committee alongside activist types? With their determination to bring politics into an organisation, they could drive moderate members from their council/board and replace them with more aligned members.
My only personal experience in the charity sector was when I served on the committee of a local music charity for a couple of years, but I quit towards the end of the COVID era. The main factor in my departure was the unrepentant glee that some committee members showed in banning 'anti-vaxxers' from our events. As a whole the committee was pretty moderate, but a few members used very nasty language when referring to the 'anti-vaxxers' in our community.
While there were health and safety issues to consider, I felt banning members (and friends) for their beliefs would fracture our community, and ultimately grew tired of the lengthy political arguments around the committee table. Two other committee members left soon after me, but fortunately the COVID hysteria died down eventually and the committee got back to being relatively apolitical.
Just had a look at the executive team, now I understand!
CEO wears a plastic tiki tied with a boot strap around her neck. This symbol is generally a quick way to evaluate an individuals position on anything from politics to gender to treaty principles…. Without having to waste time researching.
“We’re all on this journey and the only way to get there is together. We’ve all got a part to play in keeping up our momentum. We’ve got a really good idea of where we’re heading, and there are some things we’ll continue to work out along the way. When we get wins and reach milestones, we celebrate them. When things don’t go so well we’ll take the learnings and keep on keeping on.”
When, if ever, will we be spared the PR/ management/civil servants speak?
Many and meaningless woke words from those incapable of constructive simplicity.
Those who might render “The cat sat on the mat” as “The feline creature reposed on the floor covering”.
The CEO is a wokester from way back.
Here is the latest offering
Early this year, we’ll be developing a Te Tiriti vision for InternetNZ. This will be done at our wānanga with kaimahi (staff), Te Kōmiti Whakauru Māori, DNC Board, and Council. It will be a great step forward in our work centring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and means we'll have a shared understanding of what our journey will deliver over five years. I look forward to sharing news from the wānanga in next month’s edition.
No one seems to have considered the issue of privity of contract.
Blood Hell!
I have long believed that the so-called "Treaty of Waitangi" is misnamed and you have offered what seems to me to be a reasonable alternative: "...The Treaty was a compact between the Crown on the one hand and the Chiefs of the various tribes on the other. A more generalised description would be that it is a compact between the Crown (represented by the Government)and Maori..."
One description of the difference is: “…Generally speaking, a treaty deals with important aspects of the sovereignty of an independent nation, such as political alliances and economic adjustments. Compacts, on the other hand, are the instruments of quasi-sovereign governments which deal with local and regional matters, non-political in nature…”
Given that no single sovereign nation existed in New Zealand at the time of the "treaty" it would better have been described as a "compact" or simply agreement between the state of Britain and the multiple tribes inhabiting what became known as New Zealand. (The name "Aotearoa" did not exist until imagined by an immigrant of "European" origin.)
InternetNZ advertised recently for a communications manager (ie media handler and press release writer etc). The job description was very heavy on the Treaty and te ao Maori.
There seems to be nothing in the constitution which allows for InternetNZ to cover wireless technology, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G. It could consider whether the 3 G network should be maintained, the effect of 4G and 5G, on human health, and insect life, such as the effect on bees, whether it is dangerous, whether there should be areas that are free of wi-fi, or even times that it is turned off. InternetNZ has a goal of full coverage, without allowing for examination of whether the goal is worthwhile or detrimental. It assumes the goal is worthwhile and does not allow for the possibility of the contrary. The issue of wireless technology seems to be outside the scope of InternetNZ or ignored by it. I expected wireless technology to come under InternetNZ's purview, but it appears to be excluded.