Voting Rights And Governance Essay

Question:

Discuss about the Voting Rights and Governance.

Answer:

Introduction

Athletics Australia sports organization is responsible for all the athletic sports in Australia. In this assignment the brief analysis of voting rights, its structure, governance model and funding schemes from the managerial point of view. In the following assignment all these parts are being briefed and summarized. The complete analysis is done from the perspective of the Chief Executive Officer’s point of view.

Members’ Voting Rights of Athletics Australia

As the CEO of the Athletics Australia, I have given the right to appoint and dismiss a director the members in NSO and they have the right to replace some parts of the board or the entire board. They also have the right to reject or approve the changes to the constitution and important changes to the NSO primary business. They have the authority to reject and approve the basic business items at yearly meetings such as agreeing to the audit or basic business motions (Ausport.gov.au 2016). The board and the management have been provided the power to act in a better way for the entire sports activities in the organisation and the other associates who will be benefited from this. According to the Macdonald and Ramsay (2015), Corporations Act of the voting rights of Athletics Australia, I have classified the member specifically for two kinds of resolutions; ordinary and special resolution.

Voting Structures of Athletics Australia

Being the CEO of the Athletics Australia, the most important aspect for the organisation is to review their voting structures which allocate votes to its members. Moreover, I have narrowed the voting to two structures and they are one member-one vote and Proportional voting. The proportional voting structure has posed important difficulties to the performances and effectiveness for functioning in delegate or federated governance model for the Athletics Australia (Australia 2013). The proportional voting origins in the sport has effective decision making structure and it has been defined to be progressive. The other voting structure, one member one vote is latest introduction in our organisation and they are supported by the ASC. This is the basic principle which is commonly implemented to our organisation.

NSO Governance Models of Athletics Australia

Federated Model – Our governance structure is completely focused on the national team’s management and liaising with other national federations (Ausport.gov.au 2016). The business or organizational model supporting the structure is defined by the state association members who have their own board directors, functioning as different businesses or organizations.

One management model or National behavior – Our second hybrid model is the unified and federated model. We have adopted the model from the TA (Triathlon Australia). It has benefited our organisation with the clients that are trustworthy and committed to enhance the business. The key advantage of the model is the adoption of a (CRDBMS) Centralized registration DBMS.

Unified model – The third model of governance in our association is the right structure for our sport with completely aligned clients throughout the system (Horton 2015). It is helpful to us for achieving a structure that removes the inefficient structure of the current governance and improvise the efficiencies of one management. We have adopted the Unified management model where other services and finances are center specifically pooled.

Funding Within a Federated Model in Athletics Australia

In our company, the funding is specifically significant in cases where the sports have associated the direct funding through the constitution into their governance model. The principle drawback in sports is when the model tax funding is unable to provide the support for the sports revenue (Vinsurancegroup.com 2016). Moreover, our model has its challenges for the sports participants where it is seen as a taxation system. Hence it plays a vital role when the sports are not able to create the required different revenue generation from various other activities such as donations or sales, sponsorships and broadcast. A complicating affect occurs when the governing body member such as beneficiary and the customer provides the constitutional rights to take the decision (Athletics.com.au 2016). This model has set the stage and model for revenue generation for our business funding and functionalities. There is a decentralised funding system like other various profit companies, sports under this basis model functions.

Conclusion

The above assignment shows the different structures of the government model in NSO and its various ways of funding. The federated model, unified and one management model are the three classification of the governance model in Athletics Australia. The CEO of the organisation have considered all of the situations and developed them for growth of the organisation. The assignment has a brief analysis of the funding system in Athletics Australia.

References

Ausport.gov.au (2016).[online]Available at: [Accessed 9 Jul. 2016].

Ausport.gov.au. (2016). [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 Jul. 2016].

Macdonald, R.D. and Ramsay, I., 2015. Constitutional Voting Rules of Australian National Sporting Organisations: Comparative Analysis and Principles of Constitutional Design. Available at SSRN 2502662.

Australia, A., 2013. Athletics Australia Coach Accreditation Framework and Accreditation Programs.

Horton, P., 2015. The Governance of Sport in Australia: Centralization, Politics and Public Diplomacy, 1860–2000. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 32(10), pp.1238-1261.

Vinsurancegroup.com (2016). index. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Jul. 2016].

Athletics.com.au. (2016). [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Jul. 2016].

Bibliography

Browne, M., 2015. Denying democracy: A cruel decision has deprived Victorians of their voting rights. Australian Rationalist, The, (96), p.36.

Fowler, A., 2013. Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), pp.159-182.

Legacy, C., Curtis, C. and Sturup, S., 2012. Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An examination of Melbourne and Perth. Transport Policy, 19(1), pp.8-16.

Rowland, N., 2016. CEO's report: Access to key players during the Budget and election. Taxation in Australia, 50(11), p.649.

How to cite this essay: