Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the considerable work that has gone into preparing the CAQ Management Structure Discussion Paper. Governance reviews are both necessary and healthy for any organization. As organizations evolve, it is appropriate to periodically review whether existing structures continue to meet the needs of members and provide the most effective framework for the future.
The discussion paper has succeeded in initiating an important conversation about the future governance of Croquet Association of Queensland (CAQ), and that should be welcomed. Any review that encourages members to consider how the organization can be strengthened is a positive step.
Having carefully considered both the discussion paper and the responses received to date, I believe there are several matters that warrant further discussion before any governance model progresses beyond the discussion stage.
The paper focuses primarily on improving governance through a smaller, skills-based Management Committee with clearly defined responsibilities. These are worthwhile objectives and, in principle, few members would disagree with the desire to improve efficiency, accountability and strategic leadership.
However, the discussion appears to assume that the principal function of Regional Delegates is simply to participate in Management Committee voting. From the perspective of many members, that does not accurately reflect the role Regional Delegates perform.
Regional Delegates provide an essential link between CAQ and the clubs within their region. Their responsibilities extend well beyond voting and include:
• representing the interests, concerns and priorities of clubs within their region;
• providing a two way communication channel between local clubs and CAQ;
• explaining Management Committee decisions and initiatives;
• identifying opportunities for clubs, including grants, coaching initiatives, training and development programs; and
• ensuring that regional perspectives are considered when statewide decisions are made.
For many regional and country clubs, these responsibilities are particularly significant. Clubs outside the metropolitan area frequently face challenges that differ from those experienced by larger city clubs, including greater travel distances, volunteer recruitment, coaching availability, referee development and access to competitions.
While technology has reduced the need for physical travel by allowing online meetings, it has not diminished the importance of regional representation. Having someone who understands the unique circumstances of a region, and who can present those issues directly to the Management Committee, remains an important part of effective governance.
The discussion paper proposes that Regions become advisory bodies rather than being represented directly on the Management Committee. While this may simplify the governance structure, the paper provides little explanation of how regional views would continue to influence decision making in practice. If Regional Delegates are removed from the Management Committee, members are entitled to understand precisely what formal mechanism will replace this long-established communication pathway.
Queensland is geographically diverse, with clubs spread across metropolitan, regional and rural communities. Historically, Executive positions have naturally tended to be filled by members from the Brisbane metropolitan area because that is where the largest concentration of members resides. That is both understandable and, in many respects, unavoidable.
The Regional Delegate system has traditionally provided an important balance by ensuring that every region, regardless of size or location, has a direct voice within the Management Committee. Removing that representation without clearly defining an equally effective alternative risks creating the perception, whether intended or not, that governance will become increasingly Brisbane central.
Good governance is not simply about making efficient decisions. It is also about ensuring that members throughout the organization believe their views are heard, respected and considered. Representation builds confidence. Confidence encourages engagement. Engagement ultimately strengthens organizations.
This principle also extends to the consultation process itself.
While Club Hub has been used to publish the discussion paper and invite member feedback, participation has been relatively limited. In addition, a number of our members have expressed the view that Club Hub is not the most appropriate forum for governance and policy discussions of this significance, particularly given its comparatively low level of engagement across the broader CAQ membership.
Given the importance of the proposed governance changes, consideration should be given to distributing the discussion paper directly to every affiliated club through Club Secretaries, inviting clubs to discuss the proposals internally before providing feedback. A governance review of this significance deserves the broadest possible participation from members, rather than relying primarily on those who regularly monitor Club Hub. Such an approach would provide the Management Committee with a more representative understanding of the views of clubs throughout Queensland.
The discussion surrounding voting representation has also highlighted another important governance issue that deserves careful consideration.
Under the current structure, each Region is allocated one vote regardless of the number of affiliated clubs or registered players within that region. Consequently, regions of significantly different size exercise identical voting power. While this arrangement has historically recognized the importance of regional representation, it does not necessarily reflect the organizational structure of CAQ today.
A "one club, one vote" model warrants serious consideration because clubs, rather than Regions, are the members of CAQ. They are the organizations that recruit and retain players, maintain facilities, organize competitions, collect affiliation fees and provide the foundation upon which croquet in Queensland is built. Providing every affiliated club with an equal vote would ensure that each club is treated equally while creating a voting system more closely aligned with the Association's membership.
An alternative proportional model could also be explored in which combined regions each exercise one vote. For example:
• One vote – Brisbane North, Brisbane South and Gold Coast Tweed
• One vote – Sunshine Coast, Wide Bay, Darling Downs and Central Queensland
This structure provides a more balanced and equitable distribution of voting power than the present system while still recognizing the geographic realities of Queensland.
Importantly, this discussion should not be interpreted as diminishing the value of regions. Regional representation and voting representation are related but fundamentally different concepts.
Regional Committees perform an important role by coordinating activities across their areas, supporting clubs, sharing resources, fostering player and official development, and advocating for regional issues. Those functions would remain valuable regardless of the voting model adopted.
Similarly, retaining Regional Delegates, or another clearly defined mechanism for regional representation, need not be inconsistent with adopting a more equitable voting system. Governance reform should not require a choice between efficiency, regional representation and democratic fairness. A well-designed governance structure should be capable of achieving all three.
If improved committee effectiveness is the objective, Regional Delegates could also be assigned specific portfolios or program responsibilities in addition to their regional role. This would strengthen accountability while preserving the valuable communication link between regional clubs and the Management Committee.
Throughout the discussion generated to date, members have raised several thoughtful and constructive questions that remain unanswered. These questions are not objections to reform. Rather, they are the type of questions that members would reasonably expect to be addressed before any significant governance changes are progressed.
They include:
• Why are two Vice Presidents proposed rather than one?
• How will Regional Committees formally communicate with the Management Committee if Regional Delegates are removed?
• What formal process will exist for escalating regional issues and ensuring they are monitored through to resolution?
• Why does the proposed structure specifically recognize Association Croquet and Golf Croquet while making no reference to Ricochet Croquet or Gate ball?
• How would the transition from the current governance model to the proposed structure be managed?
• What safeguards will ensure that regional perspectives continue to influence decision making?
• What alternative governance models were considered before selecting the model presented in the discussion paper, and why were they not adopted?
Croquet in Queensland encompasses four codes of practice, and all should be formally recognized within the governance structure. A revised Management Committee could include:
• President
• Secretary (non voting)
• Treasurer
• Two Code Directors
o Association & Ricochet
o Golf & Gate Ball
• Two Regional Delegates representing the combined regional areas suggested above.
(One vote – Brisbane North, Brisbane South and Gold Coast Tweed
One vote – Sunshine Coast, Wide Bay, Darling Downs and Central Queensland)
This would create a committee of seven members, with six holding voting rights, while maintaining both code representation and regional input. The responsibilities of Regional Delegates should be clearly defined and strengthened, as their role is central to regional coordination and communication.
Providing clear responses to these questions would greatly assist members in evaluating the proposal on its merits. Without that information, members are being asked to comment on the concept of reform without fully understanding how the proposed model would operate in practice.
Good governance depends not only upon effective structures but also upon transparency, consultation and informed decision making. Members should have sufficient information to understand both the anticipated benefits of change and the practical implications for clubs, Regions and the Association as a whole.
Operational matters also deserve attention. In my view, the removal of the CAQ handicap list was unwise. Many clubs rely on this list to verify player handicaps for statewide & regional competitions. The issue has never been the existence of the list, but rather that it has not been maintained consistently.
Communication with CAQ requires improvement. Members should be able to contact Board Members directly via email or phone. While Club Hub is available, not all members use computers. Rev Sport is widely used across clubs and, although not perfect, it remains the most functional system currently available. It is unclear why an additional app or a BOT is needed when Rev Sport already serves this purpose.
The discussion paper has performed an important service by commencing a conversation about the future governance of CAQ. There appears to be support for improving governance, reducing unnecessary complexity and ensuring that Management Committee members have meaningful responsibilities. These are objectives that most members would endorse.
The next stage of the process should move beyond identifying perceived shortcomings in the current structure and provide a clear explanation of how the proposed model would function in practice. It should also demonstrate how the proposed changes will preserve effective communication, maintain regional engagement and ensure that all affiliated clubs continue to have confidence in the governance of the Association.
Finally, it would be beneficial if the author of the discussion paper could respond to the questions and concerns raised by members during this consultation process before any proposal is developed further. Addressing these matters openly would assist members in forming informed views, strengthen confidence in the consultation process and ultimately contribute to a more robust governance model.
Successful governance reform is built upon openness, meaningful consultation and the confidence of those it seeks to represent. By ensuring that members' questions are answered and that clubs across Queensland are fully engaged in the process, CAQ will be better placed to develop a governance structure that is both effective and broadly supported for many years to come.
Eileen McCann
President
Wide Bay Regional Committee
