And yet more on the Australian Association of Social Workers

I am coming to be fascinated, once again, by the stories that are emerging from the Australian Association of Social Workers. The stories are about management incompetence which may well border on activities that are either marginally within the law or possibly even outside the law.

In the not so distant past there were sagas within the Association of Social Workers concerning the rogue behaviour of members of the Board and more particularly of the Executive which were (it was hoped) ended by the sudden resignation of both the National President and the Chief Executive Officer and their departure from the scene. Both of these people of course have managed to fall on their feet and are now the proud possessors of lucrative and highly paid jobs in the public and the NGO sectors.

The condition of the Association that they left behind carries with it the legacy of their administration. It is this legacy that is the subject of my current interest.

One would have thought that a bunch of people, who are all at minimum four year university graduates, subscribe to a Code of Ethics and who all would say that their main interest is in 'helping people' would have enough brains to manage their professional association without it getting into trouble.

Alas this does not seem to be the case.

Lets take some of the stories coming out from the woodwork.

In Western Australia, the entire Committee of Management (these are the people elected by the members of a Branch in a state or territory) resigned en masse because they could not stomach the goings on of the people in the Board of the Association. Since 2003 there have been no AGMs nor any elections in that State so the people who still mindlessly pay their membership fees are actually unable to exercise any control over their organisation. Indeed matters have been so incredible in that state that the former COM members started a completely new social work organisation which also provides indemnity insurance to its members and arranges activities for them.

So we have the ludicrous situation in WA where there are two organisations claiming to represent social workers with one working along democratic harmonious lines while the other seems to collect the money and discourage democracy.

There is a "Director" on the Board of the Association whose headquarters are in Canberra, but it appears that this director was appointed by the Board. An interesting turn of events which appears to be precluded by the wording in their own constitution.

Let's see what this says:

180
"The members of all Branches must meet annually and within ninety (90) days after the end of the financial year, to elect:

a) a committee of not less than four members of the relevant Branch to be called the Branch Committee of Management; and

b) a Director to the Board"

Since this has not happened since 2003 there cannot be a Western Australian Director, can there?

Yet there is one and laughably, this "Director" appointed by the Board which has no power to do so has been putting forward proposals to alter the constitution and has been participating in deciding what is to happen in the organisation.

"How can this be?" you ask. Well, let's see. Another section of the same constitution, Section 123, gives you an answer which, were it not tragic would be laughable.

123. The acts of a Director or Secretary of the Association are valid notwithstanding any defect that may afterwards be discovered in their appointment or qualification.

This section gives the Board of the Association virtually carte blanche to appoint anyone they wish to become a member of the Board if the members are silly enough not to exercise their right to a vote and then absolves them of any liability.

This lack of accountability is further ensured by the provisions of yet another section of the Constitution namely section 208 which states:

208.
The Association may indemnify a person against liability for costs and expenses incurred by that person in her or his capacity as officer, Auditor or agent of the Association:

a) in defending any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in which judgement is given in favour of the person or in which the person is acquitted; or

b) in connection with an application, in relation to any such proceedings, in which the Court grants relief to the person under the law.

Interestingly of course it is the "Association" in this case which MAY indemnify a person thus it could be argued that if all of the Directors were suddenly to be accused of breaches of the Code or Ethics or of violations of the Constitution or of breaking the law then they may well be out on a limb because no on in their right mind would indemnify them for having done the wrong thing.
Then again there is always the insurance which is taken out in all organisations that could be resorted to as a way of providing indemnity.

At present we have a bunch of people elected by the Members of their Branches who are not required to listen to the wishes of the people who elect them and who do NOT listen to those wishes, who make the rules as they see fit to provide the 'guidance' for the organisation and who have demonstrated that they are not above bending if not breaking the rules of the Association in the way that they appoint people, manage the affairs of the Association or indeed spend the hard earned money of the people who pay the membership fees.

Does anyone wish to comment on this or put the story straight in case I have been misinformed?