NRMA Good Governance – An oxymoron?
Q. From Sally: As only one of 9 directors to be elected, why do
you think you could make a difference to the NRMA’s endemic history
of poor governance since the 'demutualisation' in 2000?
A. The history
seems to roll on. The Sunday Telegraph story on October 16th "Doubt
cast on validity of NRMA Ballot" gives a glimpse of the level
of power struggles that have gone on inside the NRMA Board over the last year.
For five months last year the Directors argued over who should fill two casual
vacancies on the Board. From the outside it looks like a numbers game with
none of the factions wanting to give their opponents additional votes on the
Board. Unfortunately for them, under the new Constitution the casual vacancies
could only be filled at the next two Board meetings after the vacancy occurred.
So unable to agree on who should get a seat at the table, it seems the so called
"United Board" adopted the tactic of continually adjourning the
one long Board meeting from July 2004 to January 2005 to get around this inconvenient
position.
I say "it seems" because so far the NRMA has declined to give members
the dates of Board meetings over this period!
What sort of good governance is this? Either the Directors did not know the
provisions of 13.2 of the Constitution and must be adjudged incompetent or,
they did know the relevant provisions and then set about creating some administrative
cover for their untimely delays.
What critical NRMA business was unresolved
during this hiatus? Not signed off because the Board meeting was perpetually
adjourned. To only have one Board
meeting in five months for a company with $700m in assets and 2 million members
is in my view very poor governance.
The "United Board" seems to be united in only one thing, get themselves re-elected
and stay in power and perks. The NRMA has a long history of bolstering the
claims and campaigns of the incumbent directors using the considerable resources
of the organisation and the mutual capital of members. Incumbent directors
are able to use the public relations firepower of the organisation to promote
their claims to office.
For months prior to the election various directors
were spotlighted in NRMA stories and media releases placed in the regional
areas where they would be
standing as candidates. The NRMA PR machine building their profile and the
brand "name" in the regional and local media. The spin doctors
call it celebrity marketing and product placement.
Use of the organisations resources appears to extend into to the current period. Who built the website for the "United Board"? How will these campaign costs be specified in the election returns from the "United Board" candidates? (In answer to your next question, my website is authored by me and built by Mark Gregory. Costs so far about $300.)
This power of incumbency is used in other ways which are against the interests of activist members. Tim Shelton, a member who had the guts to challenge the Chairman’s Coup by Turnbull and his team in the courts is now being pursued by the NRMA for $200,000 for "their" legal costs.
Tim stood in the last NRMA election as an independent candidate. From the Western Suburbs, Tim had reason to believe he might have attracted a goodly swag of votes but he was never to find out. Ross Turnbull, the then President and now bankrupt, organised a Chairman’s coup by proxy which swept in a new team of wannabees under the new NRMA Constitution. The results of the Board election were conveniently set aside as the new team swept in on the Chairman’s proxies and no one (outside the power elite) has ever got to know the election results. Tim and many other candidates thought this was pretty unfair but it was Tim who kept after the issue. He asked questions and getting no satisfactory answers he saw his only option as litigation. Perhaps he was not aware of the personal risks he was taking on in fighting the NRMA in the courts. He just wanted some answers.
"I didn't go to court because of some personal benefit," he said. "I did it because I believed I was standing up for ordinary members. I was ropeable because members weren't getting a chance to have a say."
Some years ago the NRMA went after the 'dissident' Director Richard Talbot with the same tactic in an effort to silence the MAG questioning of the conduct of the Board. It is now a different Board, a different member questioning the conduct and governance and a different legal counsel but the incumbent Directors are using the same tactics.
The Board is 'united' in using the power of incumbency to stifle questioning. Using member’s capital to monster any member who has the temerity to ask questions and to pursue his right to get answers about the governance of the NRMA.
What would I try and do about governance if elected? I would endeavour, in Don Chip's immortal words, to try "to keep the bastards honest". Difficult because the power of incumbency is seductive…That’s where active members come in.