Re Niall’s request:

“I’d like to ask the exec if there is any evidence that the non-voting status of corporate members has discouraged them from joining. I suspect that it’s more likely that they haven’t joined because they haven’t been asked/been pitched the case. “

Yes, this very matter was the reason for the proposal for this change. In the re-establishing of the SA branch, one University was not willing to take out a corporate subscription for this very reason. One of our committee members, who works for that University and has taken on the role of membership coordinator in our branch committee, took up the issue early this year, trying to frame a motion that would overcome their resistance as, she believes, there are quite a few people there who would join through the corporate membership. Her motion was overtaken by Jesse’s (with her consent) as Jesse’s contained further improvements that encompassed her concerns and more.

That is the only concrete example of which I am aware, but given that we have only reformed this year, that may not be surprising. She certainly believes that this revised ruling would improve her chances of getting members for the branch.

Rob

Dr Rob Morrison rob.morrison@flinders.edu.au Phone: (08) 8339 3790 Fax: (08)8339 6272

________________________________ From: asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au [asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Niall Byrne [niall@scienceinpublic.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 3:00 PM To: ASC list (asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au) Subject: Re: [ASC-list] Motions to change the ASC Constitution – for ASC AGM 2010

Dear Sarah,

I’m comfortable with the suggestion that the Council can vary the rate for corporate members.

I’m worried about the proposal to effectively give corporate members a block vote (because one person can attend carrying proxies ).

One of the things that our sister organisations in the US and the UK have worked hard to do is to ensure that they don’t become dominated by PR but continue to be a broad church of writers.

This is a move in the other direction.

I’d like to ask the exec if there is any evidence that the non-voting status of corporate members has discouraged them from joining. I suspect that it’s more likely that they haven’t joined because they haven’t been asked/been pitched the case.

What do other members think?

Kind regards,

Niall

________

Niall Byrne

Science in Public has moved to:

82 Hudsons Road, Spotswood Vic 3015 Our postal address is PO Box 2076 Spotswood VIC 3015 Our landline stays the same – 03 9398 1416.

Niall’s mobile: 0417 131 977 Sarah’s mobile: 0413 332 489

niall@scienceinpublic.com.au Twitter scienceinpublic Full contact details at www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog

From: asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au [mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Sarah Lau Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 7:49 PM To: asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au Subject: [ASC-list] Motions to change the ASC Constitution – for ASC AGM 2010

Dear ASC Members,

Further to the notice of the AGM on Monday 13 December 2010, please see below the proposed motions for changes to the ASC Constitution.

Motions to change the ASC Constitution – for ASC AGM 2010

1. Motion to change the Constitution – Motion made by Jesse Shore and seconded by Rob Morrison. We propose the constitution is amended as follows (proposed changes to wording in the current and revised clauses are underlined): Section 4 of the constitution – ‘MEMBERSHIP’ Current wording:

4.1.2.2

The membership fee for Corporate Members shall be at a rate of 800% of the standard Annual Membership Fee.

Proposed new wording

4.1.2.2

The membership fee for Corporate Members shall be at the rate as determined by the National Council but not less than 500% of the standard Annual Membership Fee. The rate may be changed once each year to come into effect at the annual membership renewal date or at the beginning of the ASC financial year.

Reason for proposed amendment: The ASC currently has only two corporate members. This low number may be because the membership fee is not sufficiently enticing and/or that representatives of corporate members have no voting rights unless they are members of the National Council. The proposed change in wording addresses the cost factor.

A few years ago, to make corporate membership more attractive, ASC officials changed the rate for corporate membership from 800% to 600% of the standard annual member’s fee although this is not in accord with the current wording of Clause 4.1.2.2.

I advocate that the National Council, as the policy making body of ASC, have the authority to set the rate with the constraint of the stated minimum 500%. The proposed wording will enable the National Council to make such adjustments without having to hold a special meeting and changes are limited to one per year.

This change does not affect Clause 5.2.4.2 which states that standard annual membership and joining fee is determined at each Annual General Meeting.

2. Motion to change the Constitution – Motion made by Jesse Shore and seconded by Rob Morrison. We propose the constitution is amended as follows (proposed changes to wording in the current and revised clauses are underlined): Section 4 of the constitution – ‘MEMBERSHIP’ Current wording:

4.2.2

Representatives of Corporate Members who are not members of the National Council may participate in debates on matters of business at any General Meeting, but shall not be entitled to vote.

Proposed new wording

4.2.2

Representatives of Corporate Members who are not members of the National Council may participate in debates on matters of business at any General Meeting and up to five (5) representatives nominated by the Corporate Member shall be entitled to vote. As some representatives may be members of National Council with full voting rights according to Clause 4.2.1, the maximum number of votes for each Corporate Member will be five (5).

Reason for proposed amendment: The ASC currently has no corporate members. This may be because representatives of corporate members have no voting rights unless they are on the National Council. The proposed amendment provides voting rights.

The existing Clause 4.1.2.2 of the constitution states that Corporate Members can have ten members for the cost of eight and a few years ago ASC officials decided the rate should be ten for the cost of six (please see the proposed amendment of clause 4.1.2.2 for more background). This proposed amendment is meant to acknowledge and encourage the active participation of Corporate Members in the organisation while limiting undue influence from force of numbers.

The wording for this amendment does not restrict the means the ASC management (the President and National Council) use to prevent the unlikely situation of more than 5 representatives of one Corporate Member joining the National Council.

3. Motion to change the Constitution to correct typographical errors – Motion made by Jesse Shore and seconded by Rob Morrison. We propose the constitution is amended as follows (proposed changes to wording in the current and revised clauses are underlined): Section 4 of the constitution – ‘MEMBERSHIP’ Current wording:

4.1.2.1

Corporate Members are entitled to nominate up to ten (10) representatives to enjoy the privileges of Ordinary Membership, including attendance at Meetings at the Ordinary Members’ rate of entrance fee according to Clause 5.2.1, but subject to the operation of Clause 4.2.2.

Proposed new wording

4.1.2.1

Corporate Members are entitled to nominate up to ten (10) representatives to enjoy the privileges of Ordinary Membership, including attendance at Meetings at the Ordinary Members’ rate of entrance fee according to Clause 5.1.2, but subject to the operation of Clause 4.2.2.

Reason for proposed amendment: This corrects a confusing typographical error in Clause 4.1.2.1. The stated Clause 5.2.1 refers to when the AGM is to be called. Clause 5.1.2 refers to fees to attend meetings as follows:

5.1.2

The National Council or Committee shall discriminate in favour of members when charging admission to cover meeting costs.

Section 5 of the constitution – ‘MEETINGS’ Current wording:

5.1

GENENERAL MEETINGS

Proposed new wording

5.1

GENERAL MEETINGS

Reason for proposed amendment: This corrects a typographical error.

Section 6 of the constitution – ‘MANAGEMENT’ Current wording: 6.1.7

Should a casual vacancy occur in the representational of any Branch, the Branch shall nominate a replacement, with such nomination being confirmed by the Branch at its next General Meeting.

Proposed new wording 6.1.7

Should a casual vacancy occur in the representation of any Branch, the Branch shall nominate a replacement, with such nomination being confirmed by the Branch at its next General Meeting.

Reason for proposed amendment: This corrects a typographical error.

Section 7 of the constitution – ‘DISCIPLINING OF MEMBERS’ Current wording:

7.1

Where the National Council is of the opinion that a member has persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association or has s persistently refused or neglected to comply with a provision of this Constitution, the Committee may act to discipline the member.

Proposed new wording

7.1

Where the National Council is of the opinion that a member has persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association or has persistently refused or neglected to comply with a provision of this Constitution, the Committee may act to discipline the member.

Reason for proposed amendment: This corrects a typographical error.

_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115

My apologies to Cathy, the suggestion to include states/territories wasn’t directed at her – I sloppily used her email to do a reply, and didn’t expunge her details. It was simply a reminder as we are getting lots of NSWk material coming to inboxes. My apologies, Cathy.

The recently released report “Inspiring Australia. A national strategy for engagement with the sciences” is arguably the most relevant and significant report that ASC has seen. It deals specifically with the need for better science communication in Australia – a need that inspired the creation of ASC some 16 years ago, and makes many diverse recommendations that will strike a chord with ASC members.

Many of those members will have been consulted in the preparation of the report, and will have some views about its content and recommendations, as will others to whom the report is new. In my view the report has much to offer, but the test will be in how (and how completely) some of it’s recommendations are put into practice, how others will be interpreted and how others again might be improved or clarified.

Given that ASC is the national professional body for Australian Science Communicators, it is essential that we have a considered response to the report which reflects the diversity of experiences and involvement of our members.

Jesse Shore has asked me to collate these responses. I recognise that, for many who are already overburdened, tackling a full report may be arduous, but I would ask you to consider and comment on at least the recommendation that most affects or interests you. If you can do more, it will be most welcome, but one response from each member would be a very good start.

Some of us have already been asked to comment on the report in the media, and those comments will be included. Tim Thwaites has suggested that the parts of the report most relevant to ASC are:

Recommendations 2-4 (re advisory bodies)

Recommendation 7 (re annual science and society forums; an obvious link to ASC conferences)

Recommendation 9 (re collaborative projects)

Recommendation 10 (ASC has already moved a long way towards accrediting science communication courses)

Recommendation 13 (re the ‘national framework – local action) approach)

Recommendation 14 (The proposed nReport reational web presence – can we help out or give advice?)

and Recommendation 15 (ASC’s potential involvement in evaluation).

I think that most members would also be interested in Recommendation 1 (re a national initiative to increase….public engagement in the sciences) and Recommendation 2 (strategic national priorities for communicating science…) and probably other recommendations as well.

The report (Executive Summary and full report) can be found as a pdf at:-

at www.innovation.gov.au http://www.innovation.gov.au/General/Corp-MC/Pages/InspiringAustralia.aspx. or http://www.innovation.gov.au/General/Corp-MC/Pages/InspiringAustralia.aspx

I recommend reading the full report. It is clearly written and, importantly, provides the reasoning behind the recommendations.

Please send any comments to me at rob.morrison@flinders.edu.au with “INSPIRING AUSTRALIA RESPONSE” in the subject line by the end of March (mid-March is even better) and identifying by the report’s own numbering system which recommendation or part of the report your comments refer to.

Rob Morrison Vice President, ASC