DPA Constitution Review - Drafting Options Survey

Overview

As part of this next round of engagement, we are looking for focused feedback in some areas of governance, membership and disputes resolution for our proposed Constitution.

Please read the Options Paper, Summary videos and/or theExecutive Summary.

Then come back to this survey. You can also send feedback directly to info@dpa.org.nz.

The proposed changes aim to clearly explain what rights come with each membership type (e.g., voting, standing for election).

1.Do you feel this approach is clear and fair?

Yes

Unsure

Is there anything we could explain better?

2.Are the rights and responsibilities of members (e.g., voting, standing for election, keeping contact details up to date) clear to you?

Yes

Somewhat

What could be improved?

Membership Rights

Consideration has been given to how members obtain their rights as members and when, including when they might be eligible to run for the NEC.

Members rights accrue after a 90 day, or 3-month provisional period from when they apply to become a member.
After 3- or 6- months they have the right to vote at members’ meetings.
After 3-, 6-, or 12- months they have the right to stand for election.
The NEC would still have oversight over member applications, but it would be delegated to the Operations team to manage day to day. The NEC would periodically review membership applications, to provide assurance that those being admitted to DPA membership meet the eligibility requirements.

3.What do you think is an appropriate stand down period before you obtain rights as a member:

for 3 months

for 6 months

Something else?

4.To be eligible to stand for election to the NEC, how long do you think someone should be a member for before they are eligible to stand for membership?

for 3 months

for 6 months

for 12 months

Something else?

Proxy Voting

5.The proposal limits proxy voting to those with impairments that prevent them from fully participating in meetings. Do you support this targeted approach to proxy voting?

Yes

Unsure

Do you have concerns or suggestions?

6.To be eligible to stand for election to the NEC, how long do you think someone should be a member for before they are eligible to stand for membership?

for 3 months

for 6 months

for 12 months

Something else?

7.Do you have any other feedback?

Governance options

Leadership structure

There are three proposed options for how the leadership of the National Executive Committee (NEC) is structured:

Option 1: Keep the current model (President, Immediate Past President, President Elect), with minor updates

Option 2: Shared leadership (e.g. co-Chairs or President/Vice-President)

Option 3: NEC elects its own Chair and Deputy Chair after the AGM

8.Which leadership model do you prefer?

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Term of NEC membership

The NEC would also like feedback on members on the length of term of the NEC members. Currently, the term is 2 years for elected and appointed positions, however, the President role is a 4 year term with one year as the President Elect and one year as the Immediate Past President.

The proposal is that a three (3) year term is implemented for all NEC members.

9.Which term length do you prefer?

Keep the same - 2 years

Change to a 3-year term for everyone

Do you have another suggestion?

Community and membership involvement

We propose replacing Regional Executive Committees with Community & Interest Groups that any member can start and manage - these are member-led opportunities with some support available for National Office if needed. These would be informal, non-voting groups that can organise together, with opportunities to engage with NEC through their meetings.

10.Do you support this more flexible, member-led model of engagement?

Yes

Not sure

Do you have any suggestions?

11.Do you have any further feedback?

Please review the Governance Section of the Drafting Guidelines and provide your feedback here.

12.Is there anything else you’d like us to consider about DPA’s governance or how members are involved?

Disputes Resolution Process

There is no Disputes Resolution Process outlined in the current Constitution that meets the requirements of the Act. This can either be something that the Assembly designs for itself, or it can adopt the Safe Harbour provisions in Act.

First and foremost, the Disputes Resolution Process must meet requirements of the Act which include:

a. The process must be consistent with Natural Justice,
b. How a dispute can be raised,
c. What your rights are if you raise a dispute, and
d. What your rights are if the dispute is against you.

We encourage you to read the Disputes Resolution Process as outlined in Part Five of the Drafting Guidelines.

The proposed process includes the following key steps:

Any member can make a written complaint (support will be offered if needed)
DPA will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days
The issue will be investigated fairly and with respect to everyone involved
Both parties will have the chance to be heard
Mediation or tikanga-based resolution will be offered if appropriate
Serious matters may result in temporary suspension while the complaint is considered
All decisions will be impartial, independent, and binding

13.Does this approach sound fair and reasonable to you?

Yes

Not sure

Are there any steps you think should be added, removed, or changed?

Tikanga-based resolution

DPA is proposing to offer a tikanga-based process (based on agreed values and process) when all parties agree. This may involve an independent facilitator.

14.Do you have any feedback or components you’d like to see included?

15.Do you have any other comments on the proposed options for how DPA should manage disputes or complaints in a way that is fair and reflects our values?