A playful approach to a serious topic written in the spirit of inviting engagement and reflection. Apologies to all Avians and thanks to the Rules Revision Working Group for their dedication. Characters are fictional, created mostly as composites to represent different views, not individuals.

.

[Avians have come or logged on from all over the country. They begin by acknowledging the ancient lands, waters and skies of their shared home and settle into opening worship…]

Brolga:       Friends, we’ve heard the proposed revisions to our constitution, known as ‘the Rules’. Clearly, it’s time these are updated. It’s also an opportunity to make other changes.

Woodswallow:   Well, there’s no doubt we can accept revisions relating to amended legislation, such as new financial reporting obligations. Also dropping the common seal.

Swamphen:    It’s sensible to leave out Handbook references and that awfully long list of Footnotes. We all know the Handbook is an evolving guide and can’t possibly stay current. Just like the old Members & Attenders Lists—out-of-date as soon as they’re printed—er, well not printed any more—hmph… [flicks its tail, somewhat flustered]

Cassowary:     I can see how revisions might reflect our new Office structure and the Finance Committee being drawn from across Regional Flocks, but I hesitate to keep ‘Secretary’ when we no longer have one. I get that it’s a generic term to cover tasks that need to be done, but isn’t this confusing? In our peculiar Avian way, such tasks are actually spread across several roles.

Wagtail:     Such a fuss about wording! Can’t we leave that to the Rules Revision Working Group and trust in the intention here? After all, it’s just a legal requirement. We need our time and energy for the things that really matter. Saving our habitats and preventing extinctions are urgent concerns. That’s how we Avians let our lives speak, not by bureaucratic nonse—hmm, stuff.

Emu:           If I may offer a pertinent quote?… [fluffing out feathers] Now, my memory’s not what it used to be… Something like: ‘Our focus should be on being Avians, not on running Avians.’

Goshawk (they/them):     Friends, we Avians have expressed solidarity with First Peoples and their recognition in the country’s constitution, why wouldn’t we care about our own constitution being in right ordering?

Stone-curlew: Why don’t we use the word ‘constitution’? ‘Rules’ smacks of regimentation and doesn’t sit well. Besides, we want this document to be meaningful, reflecting who we are and how we Avians do things, as well as being legally watertight.

Honeyeater:   That Friend speaks my mind. I’d like to see ‘the Flock’ [equivalent to ‘the Society’ for Quakers] replace ‘the Association’ which is far too secular. Let’s reclaim our Avian identity and reconnect with these Rules. They legally bind each one of us—and now potentially Attenders, too. Make this ours. Something we can be proud of.

Oystercatcher:      Just coming back to ‘Rules’ as a title… Perhaps we can think of it in monastic terms, as a Rule to live by? Friends, let’s not keep changing things unnecessarily. Can we go with the document the way it’s worded?

Rosella:      It would be wonderful to modernise the layout and use plain language to make the Rules family-friendly and accessible for everyone. I could go out on a limb and suggest we restructure the middle sections to streamline them… [embarrassed] Perhaps that’s best left for a future review…

Thornbill:   We can’t keep changing the Rules willy-nilly. A lot of work has gone into this already and there’s a fee each time.

Scrub-wren:    Our Regional Flock acknowledges the care and thought that has gone into this proposal. We’re happy to accept the revisions in full as recommended.

Gannet:      Can we have more information about this bit first, where the proposal talks about Friends? I’m happy to use ‘Friends’ for both Members and Attenders when there’s no need to distinguish between them. We all recognise that Attenders can participate fully at our gatherings. But shouldn’t ‘Member’ be specified when it comes to holding certain offices? Or to identifying who is counted in the quorum at the AGM?

Currawong:    It’s not just about an inclusive term. What is at the heart of this revision is Attenders automatically becoming members of our Countrywide Flock and being treated equally with Members.

Cockatoo:  [squawks] What!!! …[crest visibly lowers]… Er, sorry. But doing away with Membership at this level is a massive change. What will it mean? Besides the potential for no Members in a quorum and dear old Brolga being replaced by an Attender and I don’t know what else… [in a flap; then more calmly] What are the implications?

Pelican:      You know, Friends, this is the way things are going. You’ll see that we’re already flying in this direction when you look at the dwindling numbers for Members and the current commitment and involvement of Attenders holding vital positions. Let’s face reality.

Finch:         Are there any financial consequences? Will our quotas go up?

Swan:         This revision won’t affect how Members and Attenders are treated in regions. In fact, membership of Countrywide Flock has always been controlled at the regional level.

Pitta:          That’s fine, as long as their processes are consistent. Shouldn’t we wait for the report of the Members & Attenders Working Group? Then we can all be confident about what ‘recorded Attender’ means before deciding.

Chough (he/him):       I don’t think that matters. Sorting out a unified process is underway. The question is: do we need Membership with a capital ‘M’ at countrywide level? Our early tradition didn’t have membership—it’s relatively recent.

Penguin:    Are we making ourselves vulnerable to misuse of power? We must ensure the Rules have proper safeguards about who can call meetings, how much notice is given and how this is done.

Brolga:       Friends, let us pause for guidance from the Spirit. [palpable silence descends on all assembled]

Lorikeet:    Our Friend mentioned right ordering before. I don’t believe it is in right ordering to make changes to the Rules which go beyond our current practice.

Kookaburra:   Since we no longer rely on Carrier Pigeons, we have greater flexibility. It’s the reason behind shorter notice for Standing Committee. I also don’t have a problem with raising the quorum—the more the merrier.

Darter:       Technology nowadays means that the general business of Standing Committee can be done by the whole flock, not just a select few. There may be less need for Standing Committee in future.

Kingfisher: Friends, we are currently in transition regarding the frequency and timing of our gatherings. What happens to the Rules if the purpose of Standing Committee changes?

Pardalote:  I want to quibble about Standing Committee being ‘a committee of the association’. Our Avian way is corporate discernment, not having an ‘executive committee’.

Heron (she/her):   Let’s not muddy the waters.

Bronzewing:   How much detail do we want in the Rules? Keeping it simple means it’s an enabling framework that doesn’t need to be continually revised.

Lyrebird:    What if Friends can’t accept the proposals in full? We might be ready to adopt a ‘basic model’ of essential updates, but not all ‘additional features’.

Falcon:       Speaking as a Fledgling, I encourage us to welcome change and look to a new and better future with faith and hope.

Brolga:       Friends, we’ve heard your contributions. Please hold us in the Light as we craft a Minute for your consideration.

[We’ll leave Brolga and the gathered Avians to discern the sense of the Meeting and seek a way forward. How would you write the draft Minute?]