Anyway. back to the response from Steve Tuuta, to my blog on communication and other things. It seems an odd response to the content of the blog. It has obviously triggered something.
The thing to remember is this - the only reason this blog started was because no information or communication about anything to do with the Runanga as an organisation, was being sent out. The social, cultural and economic condition of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri, the Iwi represented by the Runanga, was unknown, but more importantly, the status of critical Treaty negotiations with Crown for Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri, had been stopped. No one knew or had any communication about why all the staff had been fired in July 2007, why a Board member had resigned and that since July 2997, no Board quorum existed, no Board meetings had been held, hui-a-Iwi, or agm called. No one knew what happened to major economic and education projects that had taken years to develop and staff were being blamed for the situation. Yet decision making continued with no accountability or communication with members, despite independent advice pointing out the concerns and possible outcomes.
So, in this instance, as far as we knew, we had a renegade and split Board doing things they way they thought things should be done.
So what happens when this happens in an organisation? Who has to do what?
There are many things that could have happened, but didn’t.
The organisation belongs to its members who, ultimately, must take responsibility for who runs it. It is the reason why the Statement of Claim includes the members and the Board as Defendants and sets out the concerns. The constitution provides the rules and guidelines by which those who are elected by the members, must run the organisation and for for members to monitor and make the Board accountable. On top of that, the organisation must comply with a whole lot of associated laws of administration, management, financial control, human resource management etc. In addition, and more importantly for me, are the fundamental principles upon which the organisation was instituted.
The Runanga, like the Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust, is an Iwi organisation AND must comply with the lore, laws and regulations that protect the customary entitlements of tribe (Iwi) that it says it represents. Underpinning these laws and lore’s are the protections covenanted by the Treaty of Waitangi. That means in simple terms, look after the people, the land and the environs of its Rohe and the things within,for generations still not born. It means 'leave a legacy that will empower all our families into the future'. It is also the access right to Treaty settlement assets.
So what did the members do to put the breaks on the renegade Board and Chairman?
I can’t answer for others but I do know what I did and the result is posted on Google Groups and the Blog. It was the only way to stop what was going on and for the process to be transparent, open and to let everyone know what was going on. I simply followed the rules of the constitution because that is what any member can do; as those who belong to the Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust, can also do. More importantly, because I knew that a consequence of the Board decisions to dismiss all staff, was to stop the Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations for the Chatham Islands. I was not prepared to stand by and let the Runanga go to the wall because of mismanagement or rather no management, blaming staff and other groundless accusations or in other words, lying. The Runanga was never insolvent.
The problem was, the Board did not know how to manage the organisation i.e an incorporated society, through tight financial times and reverted to ways and knowledge that they knew.
Like wise, my interest in the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Trust is exactly the same. It is the reason I attended the Hui-a-Iwi in Whanganui a Tara and continue to query what happened in Christchurch and the Chathams. It is about telling the people what is happening as it is happening, not after all the decisions are made. That type of accountability, transparency and draconian management is destructive, disempowers people and leads to mismanagement and poor leadership. It is the point where the freedoms expoused by democracy, tip over into tyranny.
It is no longer acceptable especially as so many are suffering painful outcomes of the economic recession. It is even more important when the assets are collectively owned by the people, not the individuals who manage the organisation. Treaty assets are not supposed to be the property of individuals as a private institution!
A new and more empowering model for organising and managing ourselves in an increasingly complex world, has to be found. The future of Ngati Mutunga depends upon it.
The Status of Treaty Negotiations for Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri?
These remain my key concerns in regard to Ngati Mutunga Iwi Trust. If they have been given the mana as Kaitiaki of the tribe for receiving Treaty fish assets, then there ought to be policies, accountable & transparent mechanisms in place, that track the management of the assets so that they can be seen to be accountable as Kaitiaki. As they have been in this role for 5 years and as the value of the allocation of assets were significant, the expectation that proper and appropriate mechanisms are in place, was considerable. So....my questions remain..
What is the status of the critical Treaty negotiations with Crown for Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri?
Has the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Trust developed policies and implemented systems and management that monitors and protects the Treaty of Waitangi rights of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri?
I am not a member of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust but I am Ngati Mutunga so what ever they are doing, affects my Treaty rights and those of my whanau as well as the rights of every member of the Runanga. I also knew that there was a perception that because the Trust had become the organisation to receive the fish Treaty assets from TOKM, they were also the organisation to settle all other customary rights. Not so!
I can assure you the Sealord’s Deal and the resulting Act that extinguished the Maori commercial fishering rights by removing section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act 1983,had little to do with settling the land rights. However, Runanga members were denied access rights to the Treaty fisheries settlement assets – and that has created a grievance which must be put right. Any assumption of mandate to represent Ngati Mutungz o Wharekauri under these conditions, can only be a flawed mandate.
Treaty resources of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri, are the property right of all Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri, not just those who were able to gain the approval of those administrating the process of allocation. I was somewhat appalled to find out that Ngati Mutunga Iwi Trust is actually a private trust and that apparantly it has no Treaty policies, no management mechanism and systems to ensure the assets are properly governed, in accordance with Treaty rights of all Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri.
Worse was to come when we found out, that despite being in place for 5 years, the organisation was still not registered and the assets had been given out on condition that those Trustees on the Board, agreed to give away 50% Ngati Mutunga rights to Moriori, for quota & assets. So they did, without telling the people !
What would you call that? Greed? Fraud? Selfishness? Ignorance?
So!.. Angry? Should we be angry?
I suppose the question is what triggered Steve’s aggression and caustic response to the Blog? Is it a personal or political? I will respond to his queries but the nature of his response does raise issues about the kind of leadership needed to take Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri into the 21st century.
The past week has raised an awareness of the violence in our society and the consequences for families, communities and nations and I just think we ought to think about how our leaders behave. Violence attracts the energy of further violence.
We all get angry, sometimes for good reason. Sometimes we can all do things we regret but when we step out and take on the responsibility for assets that we have a collective interest in, the rules change. Hence the importance of the constitution and the law to provide guidelines, on how we must manage. A privately owned organisation/trust/company, has different rules and laws to those of a collective.
As the world and that includes the Chathams, goes through phenomenal economic, environment and resource crisis, new ways of working have to be found if our whanau are to survive or more importantly, if our mokopuna are to inherit a better life then the one we have now. If we believe that our whanau are the core of the whanau/hapu/Iwi structure of Maori society, and then it is there we must focus our short and long term goals of development, not in our own individual pockets. To do this,there ought to be a strategic plan on how this is to be done, which we have all participated and agreed to, as a way forward.
Management of a tribal multi-million dollar enterprise is complex and requires experienced business management, Treaty Based knowledge, financial management skills and expertise, if it is to achieve development goals and profitability. The responsibility of the members is to appoint people to the Board, who have the vision and commitment to ensure people who are appointed to manage, have the skills and experience to achieve the development goals set by planning. The current Boards' have not been able to fulfil their duties,for a number of reasons and things have to change.
The continuing high cost of incompetence, ignorance and no real development,progress, benefits, products,services produced for the people in 5 years, has to be stopped.
An example of such incompetence and selfishness is the failure to assist with funding for meatworks project that would have benefited not only all Mutunga whanau but the whole Island.
The Runanga had spent $300,000 in research & development on the project, involving Ag Research, CRI and initial marketing studies to find niche marikets and develop new products, alternative fuels, fertiliser and other farm developments. More importantly, it created employment opportunities and improved income streams. $100,000 was needed to complete a feasibility study to develop financials for investors however the Iwi Trust & Moriori response was to state they had their own farm projects. THESE HAVE NEVER MATERIALISED.
The full extent of the selfishness and incompetence was revealed at the Hui-a-Iwi in Wellington when the value of the funds held on investment was stated. The funds for the feasibility study would have been like taking a teaspoon of water from the Big Lake. I will only say that a huge dis-service has been done to all Ngati Mutunga whanau and to the critical economic base of the Island, by those opposing the project. The impact on the whole Island is felt now and will last for a long time time to come.
It did not have to happen. But it did, because of ignorance, selfishness and incompetence.
So in 2009,we have the situation where the farmers are in dire straits, our fishers are in dire straits and as a result, our whanau are in dire straits. And our farmers? See March 17 Blog. .."a tide that had to be taken at the tide..."
In other words, if we are to progress in a healthy prosperous way, positive dialogue with each other has to be a critical part of the process. As both organisations are obviously undergoing audit & management scrutiny, it is even more important that those who are elected to look after the organisation by the people, must keep people informed.
A report is not going make the wrong doing, right so no one can hide behind it. It will simply tell us what was done and make reccomendations for putting things right.
The interesting thing will be to see if those who stuffed up, still expect to take the organisation into a prosperous future for us all?
Are you kidding? Its time to grow up! There's too much damage been done! If they haven't got the skills now, a report won't give them the necessary skills!
If we look at what other Iwi did when the Board did not perform, eg. Ngati Ruanui, they fired the whole Board, appointed an independant Chairman until a new Board was elected. These are serious problems.
Dialogue between people is to help understand what the other is thinking and accepting that that opinion is legitimate. If we are get anywhere in a peaceful and prosperous way it will be by open, dialogue and discussion and not by giving lip service and caustic sarcasm to feel good by scoring brownie points over the other. I am sure everyone is utterly sick of the fighting... especially amongst those who are supposed to be 'Rangatira ' and Kaitiaki /Trustees of the people’s assets.
As with the Runanga, a split Board is a sure sign that management was a mess. As mentioned previously, the state of the Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust, as indicated by the review, confirms that an even bigger mess exists.
The cost of ignorance and incompetence is appalling... but worst of all, the egoism,greed and selfishness of those who strive to hold power and control of an organisation and taonga that belong to nga iwi o Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri, has destroyed much. Families are leaving the Islands.
It has to stop and a new pathway taken. A split tribe cannot be good for its people or for our mokopuna or the future of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri. Getting angry won't put things right.
Only a commitment by its own people, to the continuum of rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga bestowed by the highest goals of service to its people, can restore the torn cloak of Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri.
Evelyn
a copy of the response to Steve's email will be put on the the Google site.
No comments:
Post a Comment