Club structure and the move to one association

[DWilksy]

Bowls Qld have been around for years now. Even after the amalgamation of RQBA and QLBA we have our different gender club,district and state competitions. We also have mens and ladies pennants. I realise the VCAT ruling has set you guys back but......

[The Fox]

A suggestion re the Champ of Champs, a club has one competition including both men and women. The winner goes of to which ever Vic comp suits their orientation. Unfortunately, it may see one side of the competition less strong than the other but it would still comply with the VCAT rulings for club level. What is the alternative, as suggested, an appeal for full exemption for the SINGLES competitions. But can this be cleared before the start of 2010/2011 or is it status quo for this until 2011/2012?

Regarding David's original post, I know of one club where the suggestion is to drop the men's and ladies presidents and their vices (?) and everything else stays the same. VLBA team manager/selectors just become Tuesday team and the RVBA process the same way for Saturday. The men look after the maintenance, the ladies the clubhouse. (Of course in time even this may change).

A ruling by the new board MUST be given in favour of playing at 2 clubs for those that wish it. I am sure that if this does not take place players will be lost to one or the other of the clubs. Doesn't matter what some may say about personalities, petrol will never mix with water.

[megroxy]

Regarding players being members of two clubs. From what I understand, this happens because some clubs still refuse to play females in Saturday pennant & vice-versa.I cannot see these conservative clubs changing their policy just because of unification. They are philosophically opposed to open gender bowls.Either the two club membership will have to stay or these people will have to change clubs or just not play on one of the pennant days

[moosc]

megroxy wrote

I cannot see these conservative clubs changing their policy just because of unification

Sad but true in many cases, whats called passive discriminartion.

AS the Tuesday or Midweek competition is invaded/taken over by more and more males who hither to had not played pennant or were not prepared to play pennant under the VLBA regime, the women who have been ignored/overlooked/played in lower divisions will need to take stock of the new situation. I believe that the amalgamation will inevitably lead to a loss of women to the sport, especialy in the older generations, many of which simply would not play with the men on a Saturday and now face that prospect on their Tuesday competition. It was one thing when they had control of the competition through the VLBA but now it s all one How do you think they will act?


Neil W

[sherlock]

megroxy wrote

I cannot see these conservative clubs changing their policy just because of unification

Sad but true in many cases, whats called passive discriminartion.

AS the Tuesday or Midweek competition is invaded/taken over by more and more males who hither to had not played pennant or were not prepared to play pennant under the VLBA regime, the women who have been ignored/overlooked/played in lower divisions will need to take stock of the new situation. I believe that the amalgamation will inevitably lead to a loss of women to the sport, especialy in the older generations, many of which simply would not play with the men on a Saturday and now face that prospect on their Tuesday competition. It was one thing when they had control of the competition through the VLBA but now it s all one How do you think they will act?


Neil W

It's interesting at our club, Neil, that many of the older women bowlers found the inclusion of men, and the reduction to three rinks, a godsend.

It gave them a bit more flexiblility to take time off or even retire without the feeling they would be "letting the team down." As a result some of the older players have extended their bowls careers by being able to only play at home or take time off to spend with family and others have happily retired and come down and be experts behind the glass and drink.

Of course, we are not what you would call a "conservative club". And I do hear whinging from other sides, particularly when they come up against Tuesday sides that have 6 and 7 male players. So I could not speak for those clubs.

[moosc]

sherlock wrote

As a result some of the older players have extended their bowls careers by being able to only play at home or take time off to spend with family and others have happily retired

Hopefully these retirements won't become the norm, rather than the exception. I am however are not convinced that we won't see a mass exodus from Tuesday Pennant by the Ladies now that amalgamation has taken place.

This doesn't mean that numbers will drop, in fact numbers may rise as more and more men decide to play. It may well become a defacto over fifty comp and assume the image that the RVBA has in the past believed bowls has, that of a retired persons sport. Only time will tell.

Could a feared mass exodus from the Tuesday pennant, which threatens its viabillity, be used as a genuine reason to apply to VCAT for an exemption?

Neil W

[mickpacholli]

Most Victorian Clubs are set up with a Board of Management, and either a Mens Section and Ladies Section, or an RVBA Section and VLBA Section. Each section sends delegates to the association meeting, organises pennant, entries for State championships, Club championships, and social bowls.

This structure will not suit the situation where Bowls Victoria has replaced the RVBA and VLBA.

I believe Bowls Victoria were planning to put some models Rules for Clubs on their website, to give some idea of how Rules could be changed to suit the new situation. They have not yet done so, however, and time is running out for Clubs who will have to have a new structure in place for their elections for 2010/11. We need a new sructure agreed to in the next couple of months; I suspect a lot of Clubs are in the same situation.

Middle Park's Rules do not actually refer to the Bowls sections - they are set up in By-Laws, which the Board can make (subject to them being overturned at a general meeting). So we can fix the problem by repealing our existing by-laws, and making a new one setting up a bowls committee.

I am proposing the following by-law. I would be interested in opinions as to how this will work, and information on what other Clubs are proposing to do. .

BOWLS COMMITTEE
(a) Bowling activities shall be under the control of the Bowls Committee.
(b) Subject to a direction from the Board, the Bowls Committee shall have the power to do whatever is needed to carry out its tasks.
(c) The Bowls Committee shall determine its operating procedures.
(d) The Bowls Committee shall comprise
a. A Secretary/Treasurer, who shall also be the Communications officer with Bowls Victoria.
b. The convenor of the Saturday Pennant sub committee.
c. The convenor of the Tuesday Pennant sub committee.
d. The convenor of the Night Pennant sub committee.
e. The convenor of the Club Championships sub committee.
f. The convenor of the Winter Bowls sub committee.
g. The convenor of the Tournament and organized social bowls sub committee.
(e) No person shall have more than one role on the Committee.
(f) Nominations for these positions shall be called at the same time as nominations for members of the Board of Management. If necessary an election will be held, in the same way that elections are held for the Board of Management.
(g) At its first meeting, the Bowls Committee shall elect one of its members as President. The convenors of Saturday Pennant, Tuesday Pennant and Night Pennant shall, if not elected as President, become Vice Presidents.
(h) A quorum for committee meetings shall be 4 people. In the event of a tied vote on any matter, the President shall have a casting vote.
(i) Each of the convenors may appoint other members to their sub-committee.
(j) In the event of a vacancy on the Committee, the remaining Members shall have the power to coopt any Member to fill the vacancy.
(k) Each year, the Secretary shall present a report on the year’s bowling activities to the Annual General Meeting.

I got this far....MPs rules were set up quite differently to the schmozzle you oversaw at St Kilda David....NOW I'll read the rest...

[Maverick]

by megroxy » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:23 am

Regarding players being members of two clubs. From what I understand, this happens because some clubs still refuse to play females in Saturday pennant & vice-versa.I cannot see these conservative clubs changing their policy just because of unification. They are philosophically opposed to open gender bowls.Either the two club membership will have to stay or these people will have to change clubs or just not play on one of the pennant days

It also happens as some clubs do not have a ladies section and there are not 12 people tat want to play Tuesday pennant so they play for clubs that do

[mickpacholli]

OVER 50 COMP Neil? You can pretend to be an old man if you wantffs!


Unification means exactly that. Women should get no special exemptions for the sake of being women, and we need men's, women's and open championships.

From what David has explained, like a nightmare unfolding, as we amalgamte, it actually closes the sport down further to the point where we MUST run open events only. A patently unsatisfactory situation!

Elite pathways are a worse quagmire!

SURELY as a brand new association we can, in good faith, offer an equal opportunity for people to participate in open, men's or women's pennants, have open, men's or women's champions...or are we being discriminated against as a sport, the only one that has to deal with unweildy and unfair positive discrimination? I wonder if you put lists up who would put their names where...

Even David knows the Emily decision was a fluke, due to association incompetence, SA has seen a different outcome from a similar case...this issue is not going to go away...

[moosc]

Then surely the new Bowls Vic MUST DECIDE THE ISSUE once and for all.

Perhaps its time to consult with SA and launch a new attack in VCAT with decent QC's, representing the Bowls Vic to overturn the "South" decission. Then if successful offer Mens, Womens and open competitions as you suggested.

Neil W

[Coops]

OVER 50 COMP Neil? You can pretend to be an old man if you wantffs!


Unification means exactly that. Women should get no special exemptions for the sake of being women, and we need men's, women's and open championships.

From what David has explained, like a nightmare unfolding, as we amalgamte, it actually closes the sport down further to the point where we MUST run open events only. A patently unsatisfactory situation!

Elite pathways are a worse quagmire!

SURELY as a brand new association we can, in good faith, offer an equal opportunity for people to participate in open, men's or women's pennants, have open, men's or women's champions...or are we being discriminated against as a sport, the only one that has to deal with unweildy and unfair positive discrimination? I wonder if you put lists up who would put their names where...

Even David knows the Emily decision was a fluke, due to association incompetence, SA has seen a different outcome from a similar case...this issue is not going to go away...

Well said Mick. Rather than helping promote our sport, some interpretations of the unification rules indicate that bowls in Victoria will lose a lot of the good stuff being offered to players of either sex under the old system.I agree that the way to go is to offer mens, womens & open events to players so as not to discriminate. If our club membership is any guide to metro bowlers sentiments, then mens & womens championships will be retained by clubs. It is then up to the member which one they enter, according to their preference or their hide thickness.

[moosc]

By offering Mens, womens and open competition means that you are in fact discriminating by running competitions based on gender, which if memory serves me correct is ILLEGAL under the "South" ruling. The fact that you offer open competitions does not mitigate the fact you are discriminating in the other two competitions that you are offering.

The only way to to run legal competitions is to make them OPEN to all and not based on Gender. Even if you base the competitions on a qualifying requirement, such as Masters, then you are obliged to allow any who qualify (Male/Female) to play. Otherwise all it will take is one person to complain that they were barred on the basis of gender and yabba yabba thats all folks.

The only way to get around the VCAT ruling is to launch an action in VCAT or higher body to have the ruling overturned.

I believe, as I have said elsewhere, that Bowls Victoria after consultation with SA, should launch a high court challange to the "South" ruling, using decent legal representation, as a matter of urgencey as soon as the new board takes control.

Otherwise "OPEN" competition is the future of Bowls Vic IMHO.

Neil W

[Fatty]

OVER 50 COMP Neil? You can pretend to be an old man if you wantffs!


Unification means exactly that. Women should get no special exemptions for the sake of being women, and we need men's, women's and open championships.

From what David has explained, like a nightmare unfolding, as we amalgamte, it actually closes the sport down further to the point where we MUST run open events only. A patently unsatisfactory situation!

Elite pathways are a worse quagmire!

SURELY as a brand new association we can, in good faith, offer an equal opportunity for people to participate in open, men's or women's pennants, have open, men's or women's champions...or are we being discriminated against as a sport, the only one that has to deal with unweildy and unfair positive discrimination? I wonder if you put lists up who would put their names where...

Even David knows the Emily decision was a fluke, due to association incompetence, SA has seen a different outcome from a similar case...this issue is not going to go away...

Well said Mick. Rather than helping promote our sport, some interpretations of the unification rules indicate that bowls in Victoria will lose a lot of the good stuff being offered to players of either sex under the old system.I agree that the way to go is to offer mens, womens & open events to players so as not to discriminate. If our club membership is any guide to metro bowlers sentiments, then mens & womens championships will be retained by clubs. It is then up to the member which one they enter, according to their preference or their hide thickness.

Mick well said

Coops also well said

[DWilksy]

As I have already pointed out in this thread Bowls Qld have been around for years now. We have mens, ladies, mixed and open club and state championships. We also have mens and ladies pennants. Our night pennants are mixed. Bowls Qld have managed to cater for everyone and everybody seems to be happy. If I was a bowler in Victoria I'd be feeling a bit ripped off about not having the options of being able to compete against my own sex or be able to compete in either open or mixed.
This South decision is an absolute annoyance and does nothing for the good of the sport, which is what we should be concerned about.

[Commie]

There are two things needed for any challenge to the VCAT decision:

1. An argument.

2. Buckets of money.

And from what I can see, Bowls Victoria has neither.