Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Inc.
Constitution Review Working Party - Consultation Paper
10 October 2012
The future of your Society is important, and so are your views! Thank you for reading and
thinking about the points raised in this paper. We want to hear from you! Please provide
comments or queries to Deputy President Mark Hanger on 021 680 524 or 03 489 3233 or
[email protected] A copy of this paper, and the current Constitution, are
available at www.forestandbird.org.nz
1.0
Introduction
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society is the largest, oldest and most successful
conservation organization in New Zealand. We are a single legal entity, and our thousands
of members and dozens of branches are the ‘flax-roots’ of our Society who, along with the
growing professional staff, are key to the outstanding record of successful advocacy and
action for the protection of New Zealand’s native species and landscapes.
It is clear that the challenges for nature conservation in New Zealand, and globally, are
significant and growing.
•
Significant conservation challenges – including mining public lands, exploitation of
water resources and continuing decline of biodiversity.
•
More complex conservation challenges – such as climate change – requiring more
complex responses.
•
Ongoing pressure on the Society’s financial and personnel resources, in particular its
ability to meet the demands of running multiple national advocacy campaigns while
undertaking business-as-usual projects.
•
The changing nature of membership, in particular the continuing decrease in actively
participating membership, and the increasing numbers of non branch-affiliated
supporters and donors.
•
Highly coordinated and sophisticated opposition to our conservation goals from wellfinanced economic interests, advocacy groups and political parties.
In order to effectively respond to these substantial challenges Forest & Bird must be as
effective, united and powerful as possible. The review of the Constitution outlined by this
document is not being planned in isolation. To get ourselves fighting fit the Executive is
sponsoring a three stage process of strategic and future planning and development (see
table next page). The objective of these linked workstreams is to make the Society as
prepared and capable as possible to respond to the challenges of the future. The objective
of this specific paper is to ask you to look forward at a Constitutional level and consider and
talk about what you think will best enable this strong and empowered future to happen.
Page 1 of 15
The three elements in the Society’s strategic and future planning and development project:
Strategic Plan
2010 – 2011
Future Organisation Design
2012 – 13
Constitution
2012 -14
To provide direction to the
National Organisation and
branches on the outcomes
we need to achieve in the
next five years.
To ensure the organisation
can deliver the Conservation
Goals outlined in the
Strategic Plan.
To ensure the democratic
processes and organisation
can operate effectively in a
modern context.
Underway late 2012 – early
2013.
Beginning late 2012.
Completed 2011.
Why do we need to look at the Constitution?
The Constitution helps shape the way the Society operates, and is particularly important in
shaping the structure and focus of branches and voluntary activity. In this regard the
Working Party believes the present Constitution, which was last revised in 2003, may now be
a constraint on the effectiveness of the Society. Some examples of this are:
•
The organisational structures (geographical branches with governing committees)
reflect traditional social behaviours and structures that are falling out of favour with
younger people. Nationwide, fewer and fewer members participate in the activities of
branches and the age of those who are active in branches appears to be increasing.
•
The governance processes (ie: how we elect branches, Council and Executive) were
developed before the internet and other modern communication techniques became
common. Very few members participate in our branch and national elections.
•
There is no mechanism or flexibility to create groups interested in specific topics (e.g.
marine conservation) within the Society, and to give them representation. Being a
member of a geographic branch is the only way to participate.
•
Active branches and local members are key to the Society’s success and
conservation gains at the local and national level. However some conservation
projects and issues are becoming larger and more complex, in some cases beyond
the capability of single branches to manage. As national office takes a greater role in
promoting major projects and activities there is potential for conflict with branches.
The Working Party believes these, and other issues, are significant enough in the context of
the Constitution that they may be limiting our capacity to ‘Give Nature A Voice’. That is why
we are undertaking this forward focused opportunity to consider how to best change the
Constitution to strengthen the Society for the future.
Page 2 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
A Principles-Based Approach
Our approach is to begin with a principles-based review of the Constitution. This means
identifying the key principles and issues and then seeking response from members, before
proceeding to produce an amended or rewritten document.
By taking this approach we hope to prompt a vigorous discussion about the key issues, and
from that discussion get a direction about how to proceed in the process of writing or revising
the Constitution.
We acknowledge that some of the ideas raised in this document may be controversial and
challenge existing ways of doing things. Never the less, we feel that the discussion is
necessary because we need to unify, enable, and empower the Society to achieve significant
conservation outcomes in the future.
The role of the Working Party has been to act as a ‘ginger group’ to discuss the potential
issues and process. Having done that, we are now handing our ideas over to the Society
members for discussion. As the process unfolds we will continue to engage with members
and branches to facilitate and move discussion forward.
We urge members to be open-minded and honest with themselves about the issues we
raise, and the challenges facing nature conservation. We must ask ourselves, is the way we
do things now the best way for the future? Or, is there a better way?
2.0
Constitution Review Working Party: Who, When and Where
Who? The Constitution Review Working Party is led by Deputy President Mark Hanger, and
includes Lindsey Britton, Brent Barrett and Andrew Cutler from the Executive, Carole Long,
Philip Hart and Craig Carson representing the Branches and Members, and Mike Britton from
Staff.
How? The CR Working Party will use the process that was successful in the development of
our Society’s Strategic Plan, i.e. consulting with Branches, Councillors, Members, and Staff.
The aim is to develop a broad consensus over the principles and intent of a revised
Constitution. Legal expertise will then be used to translate these principles and intent into a
revised Constitution consistent with NZ statute.
What? It is anticipated that the revised Constitution will offer a clear, robust, empowering
and enabling legal framework for the Society. It will be a Constitution relevant today and into
the foreseeable future, it will further unify the Society and allow it to evolve and grow in a
manner that strengthens its capacity to meet its present and future needs as nature’s voice in
New Zealand. Core elements to be considered include democratic process, the future role
and accountabilities of branches, and the extent of the Society’s Objects.
Page 3 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
When & Where? The current CR Working Party began meeting in late 2011. The following
timeline has been endorsed by the Party and the Executive:
August 2012: Ratification of the CR Working Party guiding principles by Executive (ratified
25 Aug 2012)
Sept 2012: CR Working Party develops Consultation Paper focused on principles (this
document)
Oct – Nov: CR Working Party seeks input on Consultation Paper from Branch Reps,
Members and Staff at Island Meetings and elsewhere
December: Revised consultation paper circulated for comment
March 2013: Based on consultation inputs and expert advice draft revised Constitution
developed by CR Working Party
April – May: CR Working Party consults on draft revised Constitution with Branches,
Members, and Staff
June 2013: Final draft 2013 Constitution presented to plenary session at Annual Conference
and considered for ratification at Council meeting and AGM.
June 2014: The Constitution adopted in 2013 comes into effect
3.0
Context
Why does Forest & Bird have a Constitution?
A Constitution is a legal requirement for all Incorporated Society’s in New Zealand. It
specifies an organisations fundamental purpose, and in the case of Forest & Bird the status
and role of its membership, it also establishes its legal name and objective and specifies the
mechanisms of democratic process that require to be adopted and system of governance.
Foundations of a Quality Constitution
There is ample evidence and advice on what makes a good Constitution in contemporary
culture.
•
•
A quality Constitution enables a Society to adapt and thrive through the implementation
of participatory governance
It provides clear specification of authority, freedoms and accountabilities
Page 4 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
A quality Constitution meets the following benchmarks:
•
•
•
•
•
Effectiveness
Simplicity
Integrity
Unity
Transparency
•
•
•
•
•
Participatory Governance
Independence
Respect for Law
Accountability
Non-discrimination
Specific reasons to revise the 2003 Constitution include the need to:
•
Improve its capacity as the enabling and empowering legal foundation to which the
Society must adhere while also seeking to prosper and thrive
•
Foster representation and participatory governance that meets current membership
and supporter participation, and changing societal and demographic trends. These
issues are pivotal to the ability of the Society to evolve and develop the high impact
capacity needed to better deliver its objects
•
Unify its various parts by clarifying the relationship and accountabilities between the
Society’s various entities and parties specifically its Members, Branches, Executive
and Staff.
•
Consider the relevance and possible removal of minor provisions in the 2003
Constitution which may be better be achieved through operational policy
•
Allow for a variety of membership types and associated democratic process that will
enabled effective participatory governance e.g. we now have a generation that
networks almost exclusively through the social media
•
Ensure that the Constitution best enables the Society to achieve its aims, particularly
at a local level through Branch and membership activity. The need for clear guidance
and governance over responsibilities and accountabilities of members and Branches.
Social and Organisational Context
Of recent years the Society and wider New Zealand society have changed substantially,
while our 2003 Constitution has not. In itself, this is not a reason for change, however since
the last substantive constitutional changes were made there have been substantial and
significant changes to New Zealand society and to the organisation. This section
summarises some of these changes.
Page 5 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
Legislative and Governance Changes
Since the last revision of the Constitution there have been legislative changes, and changes
to the way the society is governed. We need to reflect these changes in the Constitution.
•
Governance and management have become more structured and defined. (e.g.
policy governance)
•
Significant legislative changes have also occurred (e.g., Charities Act 2005, and
resulting implications for financial reporting and accountability, and for planning and
execution of advocacy initiatives).
•
The Society is increasingly susceptible to legal risks related to accountability,
governance and finance. As we are a single incorporated society the finances,
liability and responsibilities (eg: for the health and safety of volunteers) of all branches
are legally the responsibility of the one national organisation.
Social Changes
The Society is a community-based conservation body with a geographically based Branch
network that provides a unique and valuable means of delivering the Society’s aims the
Society. While some Branches are thriving, some are struggling to operate effectively, raising
questions about whether the model we operate under is as relevant as it once was.
Our existing branch structure, reflected in the Constitution, is based on social and community
behaviours that are very traditional. Our branch structure evolved in the 1950s and 60s
around conservation activities and social activity – colloquially known as walks and talks.
Some branches began to initiate local projects, such as planting or pest control. From the
1970s Branches became involved in activism around issues. Membership grew up until the
mid 1990s when it began a slow decline from a peak in the early 1990s to a low in 2009,
which we built back up from with targeted, professional member recruitment.
Today most branches operate a small number of projects involving a small group of
members. Most of Forest and Bird’s local projects make only a small (but important!)
contribution to national conservation outcomes. A few, such as Ark In The Park have
regional and national significance.
Another challenge is demographics. As our membership fell, it also gradually aged. Many
branches are now less active than they were with social activities and projects declining.
Anecdotally, there is concern among some branches about how to maintain projects when
older members are no longer able to work on them. However, there are many new members
recruited since 2009 who have brought in a demographic shift (younger, urban) and have
Society membership numbers trending up. This continuing influx of new members may wish
to engage in new ways.
Page 6 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
Another change is that Forest & Bird’s role is being supplanted as new, single-issue / singleproject groups are formed and membership ages. In many urban centres, environment and
conservation projects developed by Local Councils and communities are actively
complementing the role of Forest & Bird branches.
This is a sign of success with conservation messages getting through, and offers the Society
the opportunity to consider where we can most effectively place our shared energy for future
conservation outcomes in New Zealand.
New Members and New Ways of Participating
The way many newer members interact with the Society is different from the older
membership. When people join Forest & Bird they join the Society as a whole – not a
branch. It is clear that most members, whether new or not so new, don’t get involved in
branch activities. To generalise, there appear to be four types of members:
•
•
•
•
Members who join Branches for the social and educational activities (KCC)
Activists and lobbyists who become involved in campaigns.
Workers who run projects.
Supporters who make financial contributions.
At present the Constitution provides mechanisms that empower only those members who
become involved in branch committees, and doesn’t provide mechanisms for those who don’t
wish to attend meetings or join a committee to become involved in the present mechanisms
for governance of the Society.
More people are willing to give money, but not get actively involved with the Society. In
many cases these new members and supporters are donating more to the Society than do
ordinary members, yet they have no way to participate in governance unless they conform to
the branch / committee structures or processes which they may be unfamiliar or
uncomfortable with.
It is difficult to give accurate figures, but it is clear that the vast majority of the Society’s
members and supporters have no contact with branches or branch committees.
Relationship Between Branches and the National Organisation
When the Constitution was last revised the income and operations of the national
organisation was significantly smaller than today.
•
Income has risen from $1.4 million in 2007 to more than $6.5 million in the current
year. This will likely grow further as new members are recruited.
•
Staff numbers have risen (there are now more than 40 staff, including those on
contract and funded by specific grants).
Page 7 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
The Society developed and adopted a Strategic Plan in 2011 which the national
organisation is now working to implement.
The growth and development in the national organisation has occurred at the same time
as branch activity has declined. In some cases national conservation staff are becoming
more involved in local advocacy or projects, where once the branch volunteers may have
organised and run these activities.
•
An important change is the development of a Strategic Plan. The plan identifies major
new areas of activity for the Society, such as the development of landscape scale
restoration projects. These projects are outside the capability of individual branches, and
therefore will require new ways of working between branches and the national
organisation.
During the Strategic Planning process it was widely agreed that the organisation as a
whole needs to grow and become more effective. How then to find a balance in the
Constitution between the role of branches and that of national office?
At present the Constitution gives branches a level of independence within their
geographical area that may be out of balance with the accountability to the unified
Society. Should this independence be clarified and possibly limited, especially since the
Society is a single incorporated body which means that the finances, liabilities and
responsibilities of branches are effectively a national responsibility?
Changes in Communication
The membership demographic is beginning to change substantially. We are recruiting a
generation that communicates much more frequently through social networking, uses
computer based video conferencing to keep in contact with friends and family, and which is
comfortable with web based business tools such as online voting, online polls and shared
resources.
These new communication tools provide opportunities for different kinds of governance
structures and processes, such as:
•
Virtual branches or groups. For example, a special interest group around a specific
issue could be set up virtually, to represent this group nationally. At present we have
no mechanism to achieve this, and such a group would have no means to participate
in governance.
•
We could run electronic election campaigns for branch and national officers.
Page 8 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
4.0
Exploration of Constitution Principles and Core Elements
We have identified three key areas that require discussion and debate in this review:
•
Democratic processes. How to foster participation by members in the democratic
processes of the Society? This includes consideration of Executive tenure and name.
•
Branch roles. How do we structure and manage branches, and their relationship to
each other and the national organisation and all members?
•
Objects of the Society. Are the current objects of the Society satisfactory?
4.1
Democracy in Action
Issue
The revised Constitution will need to be inclusive of processes that accommodate and foster
participatory democracy by all of the Society’s members i.e. by its moral ownership.
Typically our members have a less than 3% participation rate under the current council
based process (e.g. a Branches members being represented by a single councillor usually
only selected by the Branch committee and who then tends to only represent the committee
view). Worldwide, this is a model rarely used by other nature conservation bodies.
More generally, this model places barriers on participation and effectively excludes the wider
membership. It is likely that simple means to enable wider access to the democratic
processes of the society will encourage greater participation.
Options
How might the Society better fully allow for and foster participatory democracy by all of its
membership? Three options are presented here, each impacting by varying degree on the
current structure.
•
Status Quo – The current system is retained in which an electoral college of
Councillors are nominated by Branches to attend the Council meeting and are
empowered to elect office bearers and vote on remits
•
Direct Model - Every financial member has an individual vote to directly to elect the
Executive and vote on remits or other matters that currently come before Council.
This could be achieved by postal and/or electronic means.
•
Mixed Model - A mix of the two systems to include direct voting by members and
through an electoral college.
Page 9 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
A summary of some of the pros and cons of three models of democratic process:
Status Quo
Representative processes via
Council, ie. Election of
councillors, from branches
Pros
Stability of membership.
Requires certain type of
commitment (ie: becoming a
committee member or long
association) to gain right to
participate.
Experience is rewarded.
•
•
•
Mixed Model
Mixed process (some open
positions [direct election], some
representative of branches).
Pros
•
•
•
•
Cons
Cons
Is unrepresentative of
members
Can result in entrenched
status quo.
Not everyone wants to join a
committee – ie. Can exclude
some people.
Difficult for ‘outsiders’ to
become involved.
•
•
•
•
Mix of experience and
diversity.
Ensures some continuity of
leadership.
Possibilities for greater
participation in the democratic
process by members.
Gives moral owners some
say.
•
Difficulty of balancing direct
election versus representation
of branches.
Direct Model
Fully participatory process
Direct election.
Pros
•
•
•
•
Gives moral owners a direct
say.
Level playing field –
everyone able to participate
equally.
Likely to promote diversity.
Low cost (i.e. no Council
meetings)
Cons
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lose access to wisdom of
the Council.
Can be destabilising.
Might require campaigning
by individuals or tickets.
Might allow takeovers by
well-organized groups.
One-shot process.
Impossible to judge mood on
an ongoing basis.
High profile names get
elected regardless of
qualities
Questions:
•
•
•
•
For each model of democratic process for our Society, do we have the pros and
cons right?
Which option do you see as best for the Society’s future, and why?
How in a mixed or direct model would we ensure reasonable balance in
representation (e.g. gender balance, geographic balance) for the Society?
Do you have another suggestion to make about democratic process, if so please
provide details?
Page 10 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
4.2 The Society’s Executive Tenure & Name
The tenure and name of Executive also relates to the democratic process. Currently the
entire Executive and all office bearers (President, Treasurer etc.) are elected annually, a
term of tenure now inconsistent with best governance practice and one that creates risk
around lack of continuity and loss of institutional knowledge unless great care is taken in
transition.
The use of the word ‘Executive’ is also inconsistent with current status of the Society and
general usage. It is expected that the ‘Executive’ is actually a governance function in the
Society and that the GM or senior member of staff is actually the person charged with
execution of the Strategic Plan. Contemporary language would refer to a Board instead of
an Executive, and this name change would enable present and future stakeholders to better
understand the structure and function of the Society.
Options for consideration regards tenure and name of the Executive:
• Retained as is – status quo
• Two years tenure
• Two years with half the seats contested in rotation each year
• Longer than two years, with or without rotation
• Renaming the Executive and calling it the Board
Questions:
•
•
•
•
•
Which tenure option do you think is best for the Society, and why?
From a Constitutional point of view, do the roles of Office Bearers i.e. President,
Vice President and Treasurer require to be treated differently and if so how?
Do you have another suggestion to make over Executive tenure, if so please
provide details?
Should an Executive Member have been a Society member a minimum period of
time before being able to stand for election, and if so for how long?
Is the use of the term Board rather than Executive better for the Society?
4.3 Branches: Future Role & Empowering Nature’s Voice
Background
We are one Society, within which there are thousands of members currently organised in a
geographic network of Branches. There are also supporters, some of whom may be future
members. And there are international members and supporters who have no link to this
geographic Branch network.
By one Society, we mean one Society with a network of geographic Branches accountable
and responsible to each other and the Society. Forest & Bird is not currently a federation or
other loose assemblage of autonomous or independent bodies, each with their own legal
status, independent brand, separate finances or objectives, etc. We are one Society.
Page 11 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
The importance and value of one Society with an active network of geographical Branches in
delivering on the Society’s aims cannot be over stated, this network is integral to the success
of the Society and needs to be strengthened. The Branch network is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The community based ‘Voice for Nature’ throughout New Zealand
The Society’s eyes and ears at the local and regional level.
A primary contact point between local communities and the Society as a whole
Providers of key interactions between members and other community volunteers
The Society’s local and regional voice on many larger regional conservation projects
The Society’s local and regional voice on many community, NGO committees/ forums
The conduit for thousands of volunteers to undertake hundreds of thousands of hours
of conservation work both locally and regionally
The question is how to better empower our members and Branches to affiliate and deliver
conservation outcomes? Several areas are addressed below including privileges and
responsibility, regional levels of affiliation among geographic Branches, and the formation
and harnessing of groups with the Society member whose primary affiliation is not by
geographic locality.
Privileges and Responsibility
The current Constitution does not clearly specify financial privileges and legal responsibilities
of members and Branches, nor does it set an adequate foundation to develop a system of
accountability for members and Branches (e.g. no formal requirement for Branch leadership
to be members, and therefore little direct Constitutional/legal accountability to the Society).
This gap creates risk, and undermines the effectiveness of the Society as a whole. The
revised Constitution will need to provide clarity on this, the question is how best to achieve
that?
Questions:
•
•
•
Is it in the best interests of the Society to have a Constitution creating a clear
foundation to define privileges and achieve accountability within the Society,
including accountability of members to the Society and the Society to members?
How are privileges (for example access to charitable status, brand value, right to
speak on behalf of the Society) best protected and enhanced for the betterment of
the Society?
What is needed to enable this definition, protection and enhancement at the
Constitutional level?
Considering a Regional Level
Currently there are informal assemblages of Branches within Region, some even work on
joint projects, or jointly work to impact national campaigns. This Regional level has no formal
standing within the Society, and no Constitutional basis. Would the capacity to establish and
empower enduring Regional associations among Branches enable the Society to deliver
higher impact conservation outcomes in the future? This consideration of a Regional level
Page 12 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
within the Society is envisaged as a complement to the current local Branch structure, not a
replacement for it.
Questions:
•
•
Would enabling a Regional level of organisation in the Constitutional enable the
Society strengthen and achieve greater conservation outcomes?
If so, what Constitutional status and influence should a Regional level have?
Campaign Groups
Geography is only one way of organising members within a Society. It is convenient for
administrative purposes and the exercise of democracy given our heritage. But in restricting
ourselves to only recognising our geographic affiliations we may severely limit our ability to
harness the energy of members and supporters in delivering conservation outcomes. In
parallel, New Zealand and globally there are major trends around social media and
membership demographics which open up new communication and affiliation opportunities,
and aren’t constrained by geographic limitations.
While there are many ways of organising and harnessing the natural affinities and energy
among members within the Society, we are focusing on what we are calling ‘Campaign
Groups’ in particular. These are envisaged as virtual groups, i.e. we expect members would
remain linked to a geographic Branch for administrative purposes. So if a new member
joined the Society out of interest in a Campaign Group they would be automatically affiliated
with a geographic Branch for local admin purposes.
Enabling formation of Campaign Groups with some standing in the Society may allow the
Society to pursue particular opportunities that attract a community of interest not principally
defined by geography. And it may increase our effectiveness with external stakeholders.
Like for our members and Branches, there would need to be a specification of privileges and
responsibility, with a means of accountability. How, and to what extent does the Society
establish, enable, and empower Campaign Groups in order to improve our ability to achieve
conservation outcomes?
Questions:
•
•
•
How would enabling development of Campaign Groups improve the Society’s
ability to deliver conservation outcomes?
At a Constitutional level, how would Campaign Groups best be established,
empowered, held to account for the benefit of the Society?
In order to benefit the Society, should Campaign Groups be allowed to identify
their own leadership? Acquire & control resources? Directly or indirectly
influence democratic processes within the Society? If so, how?
Page 13 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
Relationship to the National Organisation
Presently the Constitution provides for local branches to establish their own by-laws,
organise and control the work of the Society within their own areas and collect subscriptions.
These provisions are limited by the Constitution and are subsidiary to any legislative
requirements or to matters of national importance. The question is how these should be
modified to create the strongest possible future for the Society?
Questions:
•
How relevant are these provisions in today’s context and for the future? Most
branches don’t have their own by-laws and subscriptions are collected
nationally not locally. As already noted, as an Incorporated Society all
finances, liabilities and responsibilities (such as health and safety) are in
control of a single national entity anyway and can’t be subcontracted to the
branches.
•
What is the role of local control in the context of larger projects, such as Kaimai
Mamaku, and the potential for more landscape scale projects organised
regionally and nationally? Does local control really only relate to local projects
and activities?
•
Where does the financial control and accountability sit? What, from a
Constitutional point of view, is needed to best enable the Society to achieve
financial accountability and manage risk?
•
What qualifies as a matter of national importance? The Strategic Plan, which
was widely consulted on, establishes the matters currently of national
importance to the Society. What responsibility do members and branches have
to work toward these agreed outcomes?
•
If the Society continues to grow and increases its support to local and regional
projects (through staff, grants, expertise) where does primary control and
accountability for resources and conservation outcomes lay? With national
office or with local branches? What are branches accountability to the wider
Society? What is the wider Society’s accountability to Branches?
Page 14 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper
4.4 Objects of the Society
The 2003 Constitution (see excerpt below) contains a main object stating what the Society
aims to achieve (i.e. the ends we aim to achieve), plus a number of ancillary goals and
objectives that prescribe how the main aim may be pursued (i.e. the naming of specific
means to pursue the ends). In the interest of an empowering and enabling Constitution, it
may be better to focus solely on the ends and remove ancillary language that prescribes
specifics means. The specification of ancillary goals has in effect been superseded by the
Strategic Plan and Conservation Policy, both of which have input from and / or are approved
by Council. The Strategic Plan and Conservation Policy offer a higher degree of control to
members than does the Constitutional specification of ancillary objects at present.
Questions:
•
Is it best for the Society and conservation outcomes that at the Constitution
level the focus is on the main Object as a specification of ends, and a reliance
on the Strategic Plan and Conservation Policy in specifying means?
Main & Ancillary Objects / excerpt 2003 Constitution
(a)
The main objects of the Society shall be:
To take all reasonable steps within the power of the Society for the preservation and protection of the
indigenous flora and fauna and natural features of New Zealand, for the benefit of the public including
future generations.
(b)
Without affecting the generality of the main objects, the Society shall have the following
ancillary objects:
(i)
(ii)
To spread knowledge and encourage appreciation of our native flora and fauna, their
aesthetic, scientific, cultural and recreational values.
To educate the public of all age groups regarding the importance and urgent
need for protection of these natural resources.
(iii)
To meet the vital need to conserve the environment free from pollution.
(iv)
To advocate the protection of indigenous species, their habitats and
ecosystems.
(v)
To advocate the creation and the preservation of protected natural
areas, reserves and National Parks in public ownership and/or control.
(vi)
To establish and administer reserves and sanctuaries for the
preservation of New Zealand's indigenous ecosystems.
(vii)
To advocate the destruction of introduced species harmful to New
Zealand's flora and fauna.
ENDS
Page 15 of 15
10 Oct. 12
Forest & Bird Constitution Review Working Party Consultation Paper