|
Between 17 February and 4 March, Associate members of the NSW SES Volunteers Association were invited to have their say on six options for restructuring their organisation.
Here are the results of this survey.
Total
| Option |
| 1 |
40 |
| 2 |
3 |
| 3 |
6 |
| 4 |
1 |
| 5 |
7 |
| 6 |
2 |
| other |
2 |
A total of 59 Associate members voted on the six options presented. A clear preference was for the President's preferred option 1, with 40 votes.
Two submissions marked as other were not counted. One vote was to leave the existing organisational structure unchanged. The second did not nominate an option.
Feedback
Option 1
Votes
Total = 40
Comments
- Reason: ability to be heard at all levels from unit to SHQ and all HOC levels
- I would like to see the forgotten, rural and regional members have at least have an equal say and the opportunity to have issues we have addressed, because Hq have tended to take a one size approach. Rural units generally serve a more important role in rural areas, than do units in the big centers. Simply because they are all the community has and they usually have to go it alone. There is no one else. These units need support to keep fulfilling there roles. They are as important and as vital as any other emergency service in the state
- My option is Option 1 as I agree with the 5:1 ratio as well as increasing the Region Reps to 30 to even out the workload of those representatives.
- Option 1 is my choice. We need to ensure that the elected local reps are dedicated to representing their area and the people in it. There has been situations where some of these reps in the past have only been interested in the position not the work that goes with it. We need to ensure that any prospective reps are questioned about how they intend to work with the volunteers to represent them and the SESVA.
- I am happy to select Option 1 regarding the restructure, as I assume that you have spent some goodly time analysing the most suitable structure for the Association. My only concern with the increase in numbers of representative is the increased costs to the association involved in servicing this structure. Again, I assume that you have factored this into your deliberations.
- Reduces workload
- Option 1 seems the way to go. Also having reps from units that have SRB accreditation to have a voice about issues particular to them. Hq doesn't seem to take these roles seriously because they are not of SES's core roles. But to the community these roles are deemed more important and should be taken seriously.
I would like to see the forgotten, rural and regional members have at least have an equal say and the opportunity to have issues we have addressed, because Hq have tended to take a one size approach. Rural units generally serve a more important role in rural areas, than do units in the big centers. Simply because they are all the community has and they usually have to go it alone. There is no one else. These units need support to keep fulfilling there roles. They are as important and as vital as any other emergency service in the state.
Option 2
Votes
Total = 3
Comments
No comments
Option 3
Votes
Total = 6
Comments
No comments
Option 4
Votes
Total = 1
Comments
No comments
Option 5
Votes
Total = 7
Comments
- I would like to vote for No 5 please. I feel something needs to happen to redirect the voluntary forces and keep people interested. People like myself who are available due to retirement are underutilized when asked for “availability to assist in or out of area” because a team leader is unavailable or job is redirect to various contractors (which must cost mega bucks from the regions budget). This course’s enthusiastic members to give up in frustration as they are not called out to assist which is why they joined up in the first place. Thankyou for asking for my input
- I have reviewed all 5 structure options and my recommendation is Option 5. I have been involved in restructuring organisations for my 40 years as a Financial Controller and the flatter the organisational structure the greater the “Value Add” to the decision making process. The organisation becomes both effective and efficient in its operations and decision making processes.
- I have read the documentation regarding the restructure and would like to vote for Option No 5. My reasons for choosing this option are: The fact that there is a restructure says to me that the current structure is not working, and by adding more Region Representatives and a State Council or more Zone Councils would only make it more complicated.
Having a Unit Representative keeps a local presence and would allow decision making at a local level. Good communication between these representatives, a Team Leader and Head Office will hopefully allow members to be kept informed and engaged with the VA.
I really like the idea of Functional Teams, it gives a person an area to focus on rather than trying to do a bit of everything.
Not having geographical areas is another good reason to go with No 5. The makeup of SES Units varies greatly around the State and within Regions. Being a VA member should be associated with being part of one organisation (the VA) and not belonging to a particular geographical area.
The possibility of having Team Leaders as Directors would mean bringing any issues directly to the Board Room. With the President and Secretary that would leave a maximum of 8 Team Leaders working together with the President and Secretary to manage the Company. I believe all positions (however many is decided) would be a considerable workload and therefore not suitable to time-poor volunteers and therefore believe a remuneration\board fee would be appropriate.
From past experience I have found that it is hard to get a consensus from a large group of people and that ultimately it creates divides. Hopefully by having a core team of a maximum of 10 people they can work together to achieve the objectives of the Company. The 250 odd Unit Representatives would only have a minor role of recruiting new members and acting as a contact for the VA. I see all communication coming from Head Office ensuring that all members are receiving the same information at the same time.
- I would like to know about why we need a VA in the first place. It seems to imply an us versus them mentality when dealing who? Who is that needs to hear our voice? The government? I know the SES has had its problem personalities but surely it’s better to work from within the organisation. If the VA is about selling VA clothing and nick-knacks etc. what’s the point? I must admit I’ve never heard of existence unit reps before only regional ones. Maybe just fix the existing organisation to see if it can work?
Option 6
Votes
Total = 2
Comments
The general gist is to reduce to overall number of people nominated in rep positions so as to ensure the quickest route of communication is available - both top down & bottom up. I think, the more persons involved, the more frustration this process could become, and will not be as effective.
Others : No change
Votes
Total = 1
Comments
I would like to see individual SES units more involved. Results of raffles for instance could be sent to controllers for announcement at unit meetings, along with other VA information such as who got grants or scholarships. (Not everyone reads the Public Notices in the Australian.) Controllers could also be encouraged to recommend to new SES members that they join VA. I think that many of us see fund-raising as VA’s main objective. More publicity for other activities could also be provided via controllers. This would help newcomers to join. Overall the present structure seems suitable for its role.
About the survey
This survey of Associate members of the NSW SES VA was conducted between 17 February and 4 March 2015.
Out of approximately 3300 emails sent, more than 1000 Associate members accessed the survey online. It was also posted to about 520 other Associate members.
About the consultation
All NSW SES VA members are being invited to participate in the restructure consultation.
The planned stages for this are:
- Mid-late February: Associate members invited to have their say via a survey, about possible options for a new organisational structure for the VA
- Early-mid March: Feedback from Associate members considered and work shopped by Members, including the Board
- Late March-early April: Associate members again invited to have their say, this time on the workshop outcome/s
- Mid-May: Board of Directors meet to further consider feedback and options
- Late May: All members informed of Board decision/s and opportunities for further participation.
More information
For more about the NSW SES VA restructure consultation please refer to:
Contact
If you have any questions about the restructure consultation please email mysay@nswsesva.org.au or alternatively contact the NSW SES VA by
P: 1 3000 SESVA | 1300 073 782
F: 1300 273 782
|
