It was the responsibility of the APS to inform Us – not RAPS

A misguided non-elected, APS division leader says of  Reform APS: “… they neglected to inform their audience of the existence of the proposed Board of Governance changes until April 25.

But that’s not true (there’s been plenty of info the RAPS website since the beginning of the year) and what he didn’t say was that the governance changes were not supposed to be voted on until the end of the year!

What you are not telling members is that the proposed governance vote was advertised on the APS website to occur at the end of 2017 – not four months earlier – on May 23rd and now June 6th!

It is also the APS who should be informing members – not RAPS. RAPS is about pointing to the problems and demanding the APS show transparency and proper inclusiveness.

The GR was not on RAPS agenda – they were busy collecting the 200 signatures for the spill motion to remove the directors on the board and call for a new election – but you cleverly ambushed them by bringing the GR forward. (What will the next ambush be?)

It was not up to RAPS to put the NO case. If it had been a truly inclusive consultative process, APS management would have properly informed the ‘audience of the existence of the then almost proposed Board of Governance changes’ itself! But it seems you were quite happy to under inform us.

It is the responsibility of the board to inform Us. We should be able to assume that. This is the very problem. Centralised decision making, ignoring the dissenting voices, quashing opposition.

The new proposal atomises the association and forces people to vote along party lines for representatives of their narrow interests – not for the good of the association as a whole. And that is unconstitutional and illegal.

And who appoints the members of the 9 forum leaders of the of DGPP? A tap on the shoulder? I put it to them that they have been sweet talked (softly softly) into a role as a leaders of the second class ‘sub optimal psychologists’ with the false promises of power and influence. They have been played.

The failure to address members’ real concerns; to be dismissive and belittling in paternalistic way leaves us to conclude that the APS management does not respect members as anything more than a means to an end.

The absence of a “No Vote” broadsheet or equal air time makes the vote an undemocratic farce, unethical, null, void and illegal.

RAPS is trying to inform people but doesn’t have the resources and mailing lists that the APS management has. It is a heavily weighted attempt to rubber stamp a decision that requires proper informed consent. That alone is grounds for blocking the vote and scuttling the process and the Board.

Your Yes vote is doomed if you don’t provide proper “No Vote” coverage. This rushing it through approach is poor governance in itself. Clearly questions are unanswered. It is premature, regardless of the time already spent. You failed to bring the people along with you.

RAPS has sent you a “No” case – please distribute it to members today. It is not too late, even if the time to do it is nearly over. You can at least save face by supporting it in principle. Equal time and weight has not been given.

The problem with paternalism is that it assumes that people are stupid. We are not.




Leave a Reply