Dear Members
As mentioned in our last email, the Executive Board is sending this Friday bulletin to respond to issues/queries that have been raised by members about the AGM information this week.
EXECUTIVE BOARD REMIT 2
The Executive Board has received questions about its Remit 2: “Membership ceases if a member brings DANZ into disrepute”. This remit proposes a new rule so that a member ceases to be a member (and an associate member ceases to be an associate member) if in the Executive Board’s opinion they have done something to bring DANZ into disrepute.
The Executive Board appreciates the opportunity to clarify what the proposed amendment means and how fairness will be maintained.
What does “bringing the society into disrepute” mean?
The concept of “disrepute” is not unique to incorporated societies. It appears in employment law, trust law, and professional regulation. It is not always explicitly defined, but the law has developed a framework for assessing whether someone has brought an entity into disrepute. The common elements tend to be:
- Connection to the entity: The person must be a member, employee, trustee, or otherwise formally associated with the entity – in DANZ’s case, a member.
- Direct impact: The conduct must have a direct and negative impact on the reputation or standing of the society.
- Objective assessment: The assessment must be based on facts and viewed from a reasonable, impartial standpoint.
- Context matters: The nature of the society, its values, and its existing reputation are relevant.
- Verifiability: Allegations must be supported by evidence, not speculation or hearsay.
Many not-for-profit membership organisations include a similar clause in their constitutions.
When does the Executive Board envisage using this clause?
The idea behind the proposed clause is to give the Executive Board the ability to move swiftly if a member is doing something which threatens DANZ’s reputation or standing – e.g. which might jeopardise valuable funding on which DANZ relies or cause a key stakeholder to withdraw from engaging with DANZ.
The proposed clause is not about punishing dissent or criticism, it is about safeguarding DANZ’s integrity. It would only be available in the most serious of circumstances, for behaviour that justified termination of the member’s membership in order to preserve DANZ for the benefit of all other members.
How is fairness ensured?
The inclusion of this clause is intended to ensure that members uphold DANZ’s values, and to protect DANZ’s reputation for the benefit of all the members and the Deaf community.
It must be applied fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice (the right to a fair, impartial decision-making process). In other words, the clause cannot override a member’s right to natural justice – so to use this clause there will need to be clear procedures, a right to be heard, and decisions based on evidence.
What actions by a member would constitute bringing Deaf Aotearoa into disrepute?
To ensure that natural justice is available to all members, it is important not to be too prescriptive about what will or will not constitute “disrepute”. This is because natural justice requires a fair and unbiased decision to be made on the facts of the individual case. There is a risk that defining the sorts of actions that constitute “disrepute” will lead to unfair decisions being made in future. What may amount to behaviour bringing DANZ into disrepute in one scenario may be acceptable conduct in another, depending entirely on the circumstances.
The Executive Board expects that if this new clause is approved by members at the AGM, the newly elected Executive Board might develop a policy to guide how the clause is used in practice. Importantly, the policy will need to focus on ensuring a strong process, rather than on explicitly listing what is and is not acceptable conduct.
If this clause was not enacted into the Constitution, what potential harm would this cause Deaf Aotearoa?
Without this clause, DANZ will always need to go through a full dispute resolution process (following the new process required for re-registration) when a member engages in concerning behaviour, which will be slower and take longer The potential harm this would cause to DANZ is that the Executive Board will not be able to act swiftly when a member is doing something which threatens the organisation’s reputation or standing and puts the rights or interests of all other members at risk.
If this clause was utilised to remove a member, how would that member’s views and lived experience of being Deaf be represented to the government via Deaf Aotearoa’s DPO work?
A member whose membership has terminated no longer has any rights of membership, and so will no longer be represented by DANZ – unless they are readmitted for membership in the future. It is important to remember that this clause is only intended to be used in the most serious of circumstances, to preserve the interests of all other members.
PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
Questions have also been raised about how the Executive Board will ensure members’ personal information is protected in accordance with the Privacy Act.
The Executive Board wants to reassure members that it is well aware of its privacy obligations, and that members’ personal information is being handled appropriately. The external support people who have been engaged to support DANZ with the AGM will hold, store, use, and disclose members’ personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act. The Executive Board will make sure that personal information is only used and disclosed for the purposes for which it was collected, and in accordance with the Privacy Act. The President, Vice President, and Chair of the Executive Board will have close oversight of any processes involving personal information.
We will send another bulletin next Friday if any issues or queries come up during the week.
