Any Double Standards Here auDA?

Like most reasonable people, I abhor double standards. On the face of it, it appears to me that auDA needs to have a close look at their Code of Conduct.

How does the online Collins Dictionary define this term?

The auDA Code Of Conduct

The powers that be at 114 Cardigan Street have unilaterally introduced this Code of Conduct (see below). This applies immediately to all new Members; and for any Members that renew their memberships in June. It appears to me (and others) that certain provisions of this Code are contrary to the Constitution. But that’s a story for another day.

Double Standards? You Be The Judge

There are eight elected Directors who are Members, so presumably they fall under this Code of Conduct? I also presume that this equally applies to their dealings with fellow Directors?

What about the CEO and auDA staff who are not Members? Should they also be expected to operate under similar principles? (I’m not saying that they don’t – it’s just a question).

But here’s the big question.

♦  Should these same provisions also apply to the auDA Chair who is no longer a Member?

Or is he allowed to operate with impunity? Have a read of my article from a couple of days ago under “Threats & Admonishments”. There were a few other choice things said which I’ve chosen not to publish.

In my opinion, the Independent Chair should be held to an even higher standard. Can I now ask that the Board consider temporarily suspending the Chair “until conflicting behaviours are resolved”?

Once again, I’m not holding my breath.

What do you think?


Disclaimer

 

6 thoughts on “Any Double Standards Here auDA?

  • Avatar
    May 11, 2017 at 9:56 am
    Permalink

    Removal of members is dealt with in the constitution, as you say very hard to see how this code of conduct would override the provisions of the constitution.

    In the constitution a special resolution vote is required to remove a member. Removal of rights should not be simply based on the viewpoints of directors because several on the current board have a history of personal arguments & legal threats against certain members.

    Like
    5 people like this.
    • Ned O'Meara
      May 11, 2017 at 8:48 pm
      Permalink

      Spot on Paul. Seems contrary to me. Let’s hope Erhan Karabardak answers this question either here on on DN Trade.

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    May 11, 2017 at 12:19 pm
    Permalink

    If it’s not in the constitution then they can go and get stuffed.

    There’s also a list of requirements to being a member and being held to a dubious code of conduct is not one of them.

    Perhaps we should tell them we have no confidence in their abilities. Oops that could get me booted for being hostile. Better make it worthwhile.

    Scumbags!

     

    Like
    3 people like this.
    • Ned O'Meara
      May 11, 2017 at 8:47 pm
      Permalink

      @David – if you keep using language like that, I’m going to have to bring out the feather duster to smite you with.

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    May 11, 2017 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    I wonder what caused them to try and introduce this illegal code of conduct?

     

    Like
    4 people like this.
    • Ned O'Meara
      May 11, 2017 at 8:45 pm
      Permalink

      @David – perhaps this is yet another thing I can claim credit for? Woe is me; woe is them!

      Like
      3 people like this.

Comments are closed.