Thread: NZDA.

Why did the NZDA top job holders all get the boot?
Apparently the lot have now been replaced ..anyone know?

I will read with great interest.

Let’s just say the financial accounts appear to have been making a sudden beeline for the red ink over the last couple of years, and may have been putting the national organisation at real risk of bankruptcy. A lot of expenses that many considered unnecessary.. such as the (now ex) nat pres hiring a PR agency to write his statements for him.

The new crew know they’ve got a job to do, so hopefully they can straighten things up.

There's a CEO now and they are meant to make it more professional

Are you a member @doinit?

It does appear that it was about financial management - but collectively it is quite a wealthy organisation. Across the branches there are a lot of assets. Appointing a professional and decent CE like they have will make a difference. Ive noticed a more professional and focussed approach already in their statements and press - releases.

My own view is that no matter how capable the mew CE is, he needs to take care that he does not become bigger than the organisation itself (which would be easy, because this guy is very capable). That would be his down fall - he must remember that the electives are there partly for their egos and they must be allowed a public platform too. Previous CE's of Fed Farmers have done that and paid the price. Politics, huh, cant get away from it.

Originally Posted by StrikerNZ

Let’s just say the financial accounts appear to have been making a sudden beeline for the red ink over the last couple of years, and may have been putting the national organisation at real risk of bankruptcy. A lot of expenses that many considered unnecessary.. such as the (now ex) nat pres hiring a PR agency to write his statements for him.

The new crew know they’ve got a job to do, so hopefully they can straighten things up.

Cheers..thought that was the case.I had heard rumors away back.

No tahr I'm not a member,did I not mention that at the other pub

Originally Posted by doinit

Cheers..thought that was the case.I had heard rumors away back.

No tahr I'm not a member,did I not mention that at the other pub

I wasn't listening Will have a look.

Originally Posted by small_caliber

Actually you may find that the current executive aren't there for their ego but more to for the good of the organisation (hopefully).
This is the first time in years that there have been contested elections for all positions and the largest number of branches that attended the AGM......that must be saying something.

Part of the problem is while those that are elected to the positions are charged with running the association they must also consult with and listen to the members of the association, most of the previous executive didn't do that.

The NZDA is reliant on it's members, if the members are unhappy they just don't pay the next years subs and walk away, which a lot of members have done and the new members just fill the boots of the members that left which is one of the reasons why the membership of NZDA doesn't grow.

I said "partly" for their ego.

I don't think the members care too much if they are consulted or not - that's evidenced by the lack of engagement by them and the poor meeting attendance. But they will certainly vote with their feet if the Association doesn't perform. Mostly I think the members just want the electeds' to get on with it - which is why the Association will stand or fall on the quality of the people elected to National level and the professionalism of head office.

This lack of engagement by members is no bad thing in my opinion, because if the NZDA policy and advocacy was driven by its ordinary members rather than being strongly led at the top it would be shambles.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I said "partly" for their ego.

I don't think the members care too much if they are consulted or not - that's evidenced by the lack of engagement by them and the poor meeting attendance. But they will certainly vote with their feet if the Association doesn't perform. Mostly I think the members just want the electeds' to get on with it - which is why the Association will stand or fall on the quality of the people elected to National level and the professionalism of head office.

This lack of engagement by members is no bad thing in my opinion, because if the NZDA policy and advocacy was driven by its ordinary members rather than being strongly led at the top it would be shambles.

I disagree with the last paragraph. In my opinion it is better if the executive ask for brief emailed submissions on contentious matters, these can be included with the notes for the next meeting

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I disagree with the last paragraph. In my opinion it is better if the executive ask for brief emailed submissions on contentious matters, these can be included with the notes for the next meeting

Agreed. Members should be engaged with and ought to be able to influence. But NZDA should not be a purely bottom up driven organisation, which is what I was eluding to. Bluntly, the organisation needs to be protected from some of the members' stupidity.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I said "partly" for their ego.

I don't think the members care too much if they are consulted or not - that's evidenced by the lack of engagement by them and the poor meeting attendance. But they will certainly vote with their feet if the Association doesn't perform. Mostly I think the members just want the electeds' to get on with it - which is why the Association will stand or fall on the quality of the people elected to National level and the professionalism of head office.

This lack of engagement by members is no bad thing in my opinion, because if the NZDA policy and advocacy was driven by its ordinary members rather than being strongly led at the top it would be shambles.

Well since the members fund it all I would like for people's views on things to be heard and considered. But as you said, it is the head offices job to do the heavy lifting. Too many cooks spoil the broth

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

Well since the members fund it all I would like for people's views on things to be heard and considered. But as you said, it is the head offices job to do the heavy lifting. Too many cooks spoil the broth

Yes. Members should have a say. But just imagine the mess if this forum was left to run the country.

Maybe NATEX was the management model for parliament.

NZDA is in a difficult place to be sure. I rejoined about 5 years ago after a 20 year hiatus. Nothing much had changed - bunch of mostly good guys doing a few things - mostly real good like young hunters courses. I started going to meetings but have now faded from that cause they weren't really offering me anything (and I'm not just a taker, I'm on the committee/trustee of 5 organisations, just in from Invercargill Rifle Club AGM).

I remain a member because I believe in the power of national level advocacy/political input and I think they communicate/consult/deliver well on this, but its bloody hard yards to keep people (young ones esp) engaged and paying for this sort of thing.

Ive been a member for 52 years.