<br /> You can view this website anonymously, but you need to register to comment or reply. <br /><br /> To register please click on the link at the top right of the page to ‘Create A New Profile’. You can select your own Username and Password however please remember these for when you login again.http://forum.gsa.org.au/index.phpThu, 09 Sep 2010 22:40:15 +0000 Phorum 5.2.11 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,103#msg-103 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,103#msg-103
Geoff Turner]]> geoturner Merger DiscussionsMon, 21 Sep 2009 06:17:40 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,102#msg-102 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,102#msg-102Out of how many attending (ie how many were for the merger?]]> richards2341 Merger DiscussionsSat, 29 Aug 2009 10:20:03 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,98,101#msg-101 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,98,101#msg-101You may call it a 'merger' of the AIG and GSA but the reality is a takeover of AIG by GSA. The structure of the GSA remains an Incorporated Association while the AIG a company Limited by Guarantee is wound up. Maybe this was the easy option but I doubt in the long term it is the best structure for the new organisation. The GSA stucture of divisions and specialists groups remains in place and the publications remain. What changes? A couple of additional membership categories (perhaps?).

I know of no other professional institute which allows full membership rights (including voting) to recent graduates.

AIG is a professional body with strict membership criteria, an enforceable code of ethics, a growing membership and is in a strong financial position with very low annual fees. There is no obvious reason to be takeover (er 'merged').

As an experienced company director the proposed board of the enlarged GSA does not meet what I would regard as the minimum corporate goverance standards required for a professional body. it is proposed that a board member would be elected for four years with half the board retiring every two years. A maximum three year term must be adopted with an annual retirement of a third of the board. This is normal business practice.

I am a member of both organisations and will be voting against the proposal which will only lower the status of professional geoscientists.]]> samlees Merger DiscussionsThu, 27 Aug 2009 22:12:45 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,68,100#msg-100 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,68,100#msg-100
Well done to the committee who produced the merger discussion paper, most are known to me and with whom I have interacted professionally . Congratulations. The blog on the web also allows members feedback also, thanks for that.

As an AIG member , ex-councillor, both state and nationally, and who has operated in committees on both sides of the continent , I hope this discussion will stay on the level of issues and not develop into an us and them matters.

As a professional I would like the organization like me, to be continually striving for improvement, representing my professional interests and science plus striveing to find ways for members to participate on wider issues and make the organization stronger.

I agree with a lot of what is said in the document, not all, but think it’s a good start. I will try and make further comment. As we live in a changing world and both organizations were set up some time ago its healthy to review the purpose and roles of the organizations some adapted and flourished some haven’t. While the profession and its role in society has evolved and will further change in the future, the organization needs to adapt as well.

Lets have a discussion now and try and get our direction set. Can we have persons address special meetings at state levels to encourage informed discussion before positions are fixed and the final plan has evolved?]]> ian neuss Merger DiscussionsTue, 25 Aug 2009 00:55:22 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,99#msg-99 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,99#msg-99This opinion of the Branch Committee should by no means be construed as a recommendation to Victorian members, but is only an indication of how they may vote in any poll. Victorian members of the AIG may wish to discuss their position with the Committee, and can do so by contacting the Victorian councillor, Rodney Fraser, or the Branch Secretary, Geoff Turner.
Geoff Turner]]> geoturner Merger DiscussionsFri, 21 Aug 2009 04:51:55 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,98,98#msg-98 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,98,98#msg-98GSA-AIG Merger discussions

The GSA Merger committee, with the regular oversight and approval of the Executive, has been communicating with GSA members about the progress and proposed procedures for a possible merger with AIG since late 2008. Equivalent communication with AIG members has naturally been the responsibility of the AIG Merger committee and Council. Following encouraging progress in the merger discussions, the two merger committees agreed to send a joint communication about the merger to our respective memberships. These documents were the culmination of months of work and a lot of discussion. The AIG and GSA merger committees agreed that we would distribute the package at the same time, with respective members given the opportunity to express their views through an on-line forum (http://forum.gsa.org.au/).

In June the GSA communicated with their members about the merger. The AIG recently elected a new Council which, combined with a number of the councilors not being supportive of the merger, led to a delay in AIG communicating the merger discussion documents to their members. In addition, AIG included two letters about the merger, one from its new President and one from a Councilor who argued strongly against the merger.

We appreciate that these developments may have been confusing for some GSA members (especially those who are members of both organisations and hence received different information from each organisation). Therefore, in this forum post to both memberships the GSA merger committee wishes to respond to some of the other posts and to clarify three particular points of misunderstanding or misinformation. Irrespective of one’s position (pro or anti-merger), misinformation needs to be clarified in relation to membership demographics and criteria, and the proposed merger model.

GSA Membership Demographics
References to the GSA membership demographic are incorrect – the correct information is on the website: http://www.gsa.org.au/membership/profile.html and published in TAG #150, pages 6-7. The GSA is no longer an organisation ‘controlled’ by academics – the GSA is broader and the demographic data we’ve taken from our database confirms the changing focus and working life of members. The largest group within GSA, by a considerable margin, is in fact comprised of members employed in the Minerals industry.

Membership criteria
AIG and GSA currently have different criteria for the status of “Member”. The AIG model is based on a career progression and 5 years professional experience is a prerequisite for the transition from Graduate to Member. To become a Member of GSA requires a degree in the Earth Sciences. These differences in membership structure have been the subject of significant discussion between the two merger committees. Both organisations currently have a range of different membership categories and this would continue in a merged entity. The proposed membership structure for a merged organisation aims to meet the needs of all members of both organisations without disadvantaging any. Accordingly, the status equivalent to that of an AIG Member would not be diminished in a merged organisation, but would remain as a distinct category with its current requirements intact.

The Competent Person status under the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code) would naturally be an important part of the membership structure in the proposed merged entity and be administered by the group that has been doing this competently for AIG – there is no reason or desire to change this system – it would not be run by GSA. From a GSA perspective the only remaining issue is to identify satisfactory names for these different categories of membership in the merged organisation. We believe that inclusion of the AIG “Member” category (ie an individual certified to report to the ASX) in a merged entity will be an attractive option that will be taken up by a number of GSA members (indeed 600 are already members of both organisations, no doubt in large part for this reason). During merger discussions, the AIG merger committee contacted the ASX and received confirmation that the status of AIG Competent Persons under the JORC code could be preserved in the merged entity. It would not be threatened by a merger process.

Legal model for the Merger
The joint recommendation to wind up AIG was based on the legal advice provided simultaneously to both merger committees, and cost considerations. The legal opinion considered three different models:
1) Merge GSA & AIG into a new company
2) AIG members join GSA
3) GSA members join AIG

What was presented in the merger documents to the AIG and GSA membership was the recommended legal opinion, based on the relevant laws and taxation considerations. The legal opinion to wind up AIG and for AIG members to join GSA, rather than form a new entity, was based on practical, legal and financial reasons – sound business practice. Neither organisation has the desire to take over the other; rather it would be a merger of equals achieved through the most effective process. To reflect the merging of the two groups, we proposed establishing a new name for the organisation with the aim to encourage engagement and ownership.

In contrast to AIG, GSA has many Specialist Groups; that may appear to add a level of complexity. However, the Specialist Groups were not the reason for the recommended merger model. Instead, they ensure that specific interests within the organisation are well represented.

A postal ballot with the approval of 75% of the returning votes by both societies is the only way the necessary changes can be made. One forum post incorrectly alludes to a vote by GSA members in Canberra at an AGM – that could not occur because it would be illegal. Ballot papers would be sent to all members and it was envisaged the ballot would have been run by an appropriate external organisation specialising in conducting ballots.

The merger of the two organisations has been floated for a number of years and the dialogue is not new, but the detailed discussions over the past 12 months are new. We recognised that members of both societies currently work together on joint initiatives and we examined current functions and the value proposition for both AIG and GSA. We also know the Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and Northern Territory groups work closely together and have done so for some time. The strength of the GSA has been its diverse membership and the strength of the AIG has been a sharper focus. The GSA is not concerned it will be ‘swamped with Geoscientists’ and that (for example) Specialist Groups will become less important. Instead, we see a merger leading to better services, new opportunities and stronger professional representation. Despite the delay, we continue to believe a merger is the best way forward for our diverse memberships, and for our profession.

We understand that the new AIG Council has changed the focus of the merger discussions. We also believe that the Council will meet again in mid-September and that the merger discussions will be an agenda item for discussion. They will then report to the GSA how they intend to proceed.

We trust that this response clarifies some of the misunderstandings and misinformation posted on the forum.

Peter Cawood, Andy Gleadow, Jon Hronsky and Jim Ross
GSA Executive Merger Committee
August 2009]]> gsa Merger DiscussionsFri, 21 Aug 2009 02:48:55 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,96,97#msg-97 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,96,97#msg-97
The JORC competency is a different issue and the rules for a competent person are spelt out in the Code. You have to have five years relevant experience to report.

The propsed corporate structure for the proposed body leaves much to be desired from a corporate goverance point of view and is inferior to the current AIG structure. Not forgetting that it will cost AIG members more to belong!]]> samlees Merger DiscussionsWed, 19 Aug 2009 04:15:55 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,96,96#msg-96 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,96,96#msg-96
Being a Competent Person under the JORC Code requires the fulfilment of two criteria (see Clause 10 of the JORC (2004) Code):

“A ‘Competent Person’ is a person who is a Member or Fellow of The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, or the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, ………”

And

“A ‘Competent Person’ must have a minimum of five years experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which that person is undertaking.”

So – being either a Member or Fellow of any combined AIG-GSA entity does not automatically make one a ‘Competent Person’, one will still be required to meet the five years relevant experience criterion. Indeed this is the current status – not all Members or Fellows of the AIG (or the AusIMM for that matter) are automatically ‘Competent Persons’.

So, the hand-wringing and wailing about automatically handing “Competency” to everyone who becomes a Member or Fellow in the new merged entity is a nonsense. Any merged entity can still have their Members and Fellows, with the implicit understanding that only some of them will be able to meet the second JORC criterion and be a ’Competent Person’.

I am still in two minds about the merger though.]]> Farnarkel Merger DiscussionsThu, 13 Aug 2009 07:06:50 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,95#msg-95 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,95#msg-95
This debate seems to be being portrayed by some as GSA members sneakily upgrading their qualifications by 'taking over' the AIG. I don't think this way of framing the debate is helpful, nor do I think it is a true representation of the issue.]]> danwalding Merger DiscussionsTue, 11 Aug 2009 11:29:10 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,94#msg-94 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,94#msg-94It seems to me that GSA members have so much more to gain from the merger whereas AIG members have their memberships diminished.]]> wendy corbett Merger DiscussionsMon, 10 Aug 2009 06:14:50 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,93#msg-93 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,93#msg-93
If the answer is yes, then the people pushing the merger have not thought it through and deserve to be criticised.

However, I find it almost unbelievable that is the case. In fact, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of scaremongering about this issue by anti-merger faction.

The simplest thing would be to create two different classes of member, and only have JORC qualification available to those who meet the mandatory 5-year criteria. Heck, we could even call everyone who is JORC qualified 'fellows' and those without the right experience just 'members'. And before I get shot down, the Geological Society of London entry level professional membership is 'fellow'. And those who would previously be considered fellows in AIG context could be considered 'senior fellow' or something like that. I bet plenty of people would like fellow on their post nominal.

I see the merger as being a way of building an inclusive, multi-industry body for *all* geologists. And as others suggested, if that meant a merger with PESA as well, i'd be all for it. It seems to me that those against it really just want to continue their mining-centric organisation without any interference from academia. I don't mind criticism of the merger on the basis of the finer points of how it would be managed - we should get it right - but criticising it on the basis of 'loss of focus' shows a complete (and probably subconscious) mining-centric arrogance or ignorance that goes totally against the stated aim of 'supporting geoscientists'.

But i'm getting off track. It would be trivial to address the JORC membership issue. I think it is a non-issue and the angst about it is really misplaced.]]> danwalding Merger DiscussionsSun, 09 Aug 2009 01:30:46 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,92#msg-92 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,92#msg-92
Elegantly and succinctly put. It appears that a newer, more modern organisation that represents its members well is not the ultimate goal of this merger proposal. After reading a number of posts here I am still unsure what the real aims are. Sounds like this merger idea needs more thrashing out amongst a large number of geoscience organisations otherwise we will be left with a politically defined, fragmented remnant that doesn't serve anybody very well. Perhaps a rethink of how the AGC behaves in relation to the other societies is a more pertinent question to answer and re-evaluate?

I think it is time for some bravery and vision. I don't think we have left the bad old days of University geoscience department closures far enough behind...But I'm old enough to know that in the end it is easier to leave things as they are.

ach well

mg]]> mg Merger DiscussionsThu, 06 Aug 2009 05:17:28 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,91#msg-91 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,91,91#msg-91 katy_evans Merger DiscussionsThu, 06 Aug 2009 03:56:15 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,90#msg-90 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,90#msg-90Perhaps a Mega Merger would work BUT the current takeover of AIG by GSA would only diminsh the professional status of AIG members. Full membership should require appropriate geoscience qualifications and relevant experience - as currently required by AIG. In my world the AIG brand has far more importance than GSA.

The Mega-Merger concept would have to include all groups (with perhaps the exception of Aus IMM) that currently form the Australian Geoscience Council merging with different levels of membership and fees determined by the division (or services) the member requires.

Unfortunately the current proposal is poorly conceived and badly flawed]]> samlees Merger DiscussionsThu, 06 Aug 2009 00:49:50 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,89#msg-89 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,89#msg-89
In the end I believe it is the old State vs Federal Government issue. Does having a number of organisations weaken the effectiveness of the governance of our geoscience profession or strengthen it? After being involved over a number of years in getting the 'Teach-the-teacher' TESEP project off the ground I think we are weakened by it. We have some huge challenges to face over the coming decades ...inspiring kids to become interested in geoscience, ensuring that universities offer a diversity of geoscience subjects around the country, keeping the governments aware of the importance of good projects that keep skilled employees in the country, assisting people in retraining, providing world-class learning opportunities, maintaining the veracity of professionals practicing in the country, inspiring creativity in our profession etc etc. I have watched and have been one of you working towards these goals. But I honestly don't think it is enough. I don't think any of the organisations I belong to can, on its own, achieve any of the big goals above well. Our board members do not have the time to deal with so many projects, we don't have the money, nor the relationships nor the contacts. And it has not been surprising in an industry stressed by extreme volatility, and with the usual heart of our organisations ,academia and government, constricted by new market regimes.

So how do we improve our access to funds, contacts, networks, and ideas? How do we leverage all the skills in our profession and build strong rapport with decision makers? If it was up to me I would build on the strong GSA brand. They have spent many decades being the public face to our profession. Commentating on issues of geological interest that capture the public's imagination. To this I would add the political stamp of legitimacy that the tier of AIG brings to the profession. At the same time allowing non-professional membership of the GSA organisation to continue such as our journalists, lawyers, investors etc. I would also add all the smaller professional societies (PESA, Geothermal Society, Geography Society etc) to the mega-GSA organisation. Making the most of their political connections, and the resources of their members. In return creating creative bridges between fields (such as soft rock geology, uranium geology etc) and academia. This would benefit students and professionals alike. However I would retain a discrete organisation that wouldbe of relevance to its members. For example my profession could be represented as GSA-Energy. Its slightly wider scope would allow me to plug in to whole worlds that I have little contact with now (such as coal!). Just think how good I could be.

Yes my fate is in your hands.

mg]]> mg Merger DiscussionsFri, 31 Jul 2009 08:02:39 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,88#msg-88 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,88#msg-88
In a recent AIG newsletter we were presented with an account of complaints and infringements in reporting to the ASX. By far the biggest problem was the issue of the Competent Person statement. In theory, niether a GSA member, no an AIG member of the new AIG/GSA merger who does not meet the Competent Person criteria cannot sign off. I did note with interest about two weeks ago an accountant (who I personally know) signing of as a Competent Person with regard to a gold deposit, courtesy of the AustIMM policy of allowing in professionals other than main stream mining/metallurgy/geology. He was not qualified to do so. My point here is we are already in strife with respect to the quality of person who is classified as Competent. Adding the GSA will exacerbate this issue. You dont need a qualification to be a member of the GSA. The JORC Code credibility on the world stage is at risk. We might find ourselves in a situation of having to heavily prescribe how reports are written, much like the North Americans, just to get out of the mess we put ourselves in, which includes this merger proposal.

It is also somewhat disturbing to note that our(AIG) councillors are clearly polarised on this issue. It begs the question about how well informed some of them have been in the lead up to the recent email to members.

I am stongly opposed to the merger and will be encouraging AIG members to vote against it.]]> C Torrey Merger DiscussionsThu, 30 Jul 2009 12:00:43 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,87#msg-87 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,87,87#msg-87Greg Corbett

AIG-GSA Merger? A Mistake

We the undersigned are current and former AIG Councillors, including past Presidents who believe the discussed merger with the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) is not in the best interests of the members of the AIG. Some of the risks, downsides or alternatives to the possible amalgamation with the GSA, which we consider have not been adequately addressed in the merger discussion document, are presented below:

The GSA and AIG comprise quite different groups. The GSA is a learned society dominated by academic and government geoscientists. The AIG is a professional Institute with a strong code of ethics administered by an ethics committee, which provides recognition of career development through both membership records and professional registration, and is dominated by Industry sector geoscientists. AIG and GSA have very different cultures, run different styles of conferences/symposia and, in our opinion, should be preserved as uniquely functional separate bodies which are capable of close cooperation when appropriate.

With respect to the lobbying power of a merged organisation – The Australian Geoscience Council (AGC) is the peak body for geoscience and represents a considerably larger number of geoscientists than the AIG and GSA combined, and therefore has more potential to be an effective lobbying body. Both the AIG and GSA currently pay capitation to the AGC, which also represents six other geoscientific organisations in this country. Members should be aware that the AIG and GSA already co-operate to organise conferences such as the 2012 International Geological Convention through membership of the AGC. We believe that if the effort and expense of the merger were devoted to improving the AGC, then the combined efforts of all the AGC geoscience bodies would be much greater than the efforts of a merged AIG-GSA body. The current AGC President and the current AGC Chairman are former AIG presidents, so we are well represented.

The status of your AIG membership will be definitely be reduced by the current merger proposal because the basic level of membership will require no professional experience (the AIG requires five years). Your membership of the AIG has earned the respect of the ASX, ASIC, AusIMM and many international professional institutes and regulatory authorities. Under the planned merger structure, your AIG membership will no longer be equivalent to membership of the AusIMM. There is no guarantee that membership of the merged body will qualify for competent person status under the JORC Code. This diminution of the status of AIG membership should be rejected by all AIG Members.

Any economic benefits of the merger have not yet been clearly demonstrated to AIG members. The sum of the GSA and AIG would be a larger body that may not benefit from the abundance of voluntary labour that has made the AIG such a great success. Similarly, we do not know how responsive a larger body will be to individual members.

Your AIG has been a successful organisation and continues to grow. The merger plan involves the winding up of the AIG with AIG members transferred to a re-named GSA, which is an effective take-over. The discussion document provided to you contains no explanation as to why the AIG should be the institution that is to be wound-up rather than the GSA. We believe the easier option has been chosen because of the AIG’s simple structure which functions well, whereas the GSA’s structure is complicated by the many autonomous groups. Do we really want to shut our Institute down?

There is a risk that the character of the body that represents us as professional geoscientists will change and that important aspects of the AIG relevant to the recognition of our professional experience and qualifications in hydrology, geotechnical engineering, environmental geology and exploration and mining (JORC Code) may become administered by a Council no longer controlled by Industry geoscientists. The status of Professional Registration could be placed at risk.

We recommend that AIG Members retain the AIG as the successful body it is and co-operate with the GSA where of benefit to both groups, and utilise the AGC where appropriate. There is a precedent for closer co-operation as the GSA facilitated the birth of the AIG when, after the shenanigans of the 1970’s Ni boom, the AIG founders felt there were insufficient controls on malpractice or representation to Government available to geoscientists, and the GSA declined to take on some AIG responsibilities. Many of us therefore wish to continue to be members of both bodies.

Greg Corbett - AIG Councillor and past AIG President. GSA member.
Wendy Corbett – AIG Councillor
Kaylene Camuti – AIG Councillor and GSA member.
Graham Teale - AIG Councillor and GSA mamber
R.N. (Sam) Lees – former AIG Councillor and GSA member.
Ian Levy – past AIG President and past Vice-Chairman of JORC Committee
Geoff Turner – former AIG Councillor and GSA member
John Bishop - former AIG Councillor and GSA member]]> Greg Corbett Merger DiscussionsWed, 29 Jul 2009 22:21:46 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,86,86#msg-86 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,86,86#msg-86
The GSA may be relevant to some geologists but its relevance to geophysics is limited.

As a refugee from the AusIMM , I see no point in going back to those days. The AusIMM was totally irrelevant to geophysics (at least technically) and managed to cost an ever increasing amount of money for no benifit.

As a geophysicist I would end up being charged for something I did not want (or need) so would probably end up voting with my feet…

If Costs to both organisations were the main reason for merging, then having a common secretariat would probably solve some of these problems. Even the ASEG could consider using the common secretariat.

Bob White]]> WHITE2630 Merger DiscussionsMon, 27 Jul 2009 05:12:49 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,85,85#msg-85 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,85,85#msg-85
Let’s not now turn our backs on this history.

While for these reasons, any attempt to destroy the AIG’s identity by merging with others is profoundly ill-advised, that is not to say that close co-operation with sister organisations on matters of common interest should not continue.

Institutions thrive where the interests of members are strongly aligned. The AIG has achieved a strong, unique, alignment. And that does not mean that institutions sharing a moderate amount of common ground would necessarily benefit from a merger.

As examples, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches continue valid and separate existences despite a large measure of shared beliefs; so too do the Liberal and National Parties. In neither case would it be rational for them to merge, since a new combined organisation would not only dilute their effectiveness but also aggravate their respective adherents.

Remembering why our beloved institution arose, let us not destroy the AIG for the sake of a few hazy “potential” benefits which can be gained largely by straightforward co-operation.

You all have Dr Greg Corbett’s more eloquent and comprehensive summary of the negative case. I urge you all to ponder Greg’s letter, then to make your views known to the rest of us, soon.


Ned Overton, FAIG
27 July 2009]]> Ned Overton Merger DiscussionsSun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:31 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,84#msg-84 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,84#msg-84
The GSA does not offer a useful pathway for publication of papers on mineral resources, geology of ore deposits, geochemisty or geophysics so a merger really serves no purpose in this regard. There is merit in merging interests in terms of conferences and similar events, but typically the GSA people do not attend those where the dominant theme relates to mineral deposits and exploration and the reverse is true for many of the more academically oriented conferences run by the GSA. Again both organisations serve different functions and interest groups.

I think that joint membership works, supports both organisations and this is probably the most satisfactory pathway. We need both good science and a working industrial support organisation - they are not always the same thing, nor driven by the same objectives.]]> Neil Rutherford Merger DiscussionsThu, 23 Jul 2009 06:30:15 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,83#msg-83 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,83#msg-83
I would have preferred, as a Member of the GSA, to receive a more even-handed assessment of the merger proposal that summarised clearly:

A. What major shortcomings currently exist in the performance of the GSA in respect to its obligations to its membership?

B. How would a merger with the AIG succeed in rectifying any such shortcomings?

C. What indisputable benefits would flow from an AIG-GSA merger on the lines suggested in the DP?

D. Are there any potential disadvantages in the proposed merger?

I then searched through the DP for the answers to these questions, found none, and came up with my own:

A. Shortcomings. There are no major shortcomings in the administration or membership services of the Geological Society of Australia. It publishes a refereed research and review journal (AJES) that is internationally respected. It circulates an appropriately produced and informative newsletter (TAG) that also provides a useful forum for debate. It provides for regular Earth Science Conventions around Australia that enable the live presentations and face-to-face discussions that are needed beyond the writing and reading of papers. Its Divisional and Branch structure enables States, Territories and significant local centres to organise whatever meetings and events that their initiatives generate. It provides an umbrella for the formation of Specialist Groups, also with substantial freedom to run their own activities. It provides for the continuity of a number of Standing Committess fulfilling worthwhile purposes. And finally it maintains an effectively staffed central administrative office. And all this for the price of lunch for two (with wine) at a city restaurant annually! What is the problem?

B. Rectification of shortcomings. In view of my response to A there is nothing to add here.

C. Indisputable benefits of a merger. The DP does indeed list the potential benefits of a merger, a bulleted list of ten, but I find none of them convincing: they largely claim that good things will happen as a result but don’t explain why. It would take a long time to work through all of them, so I’ll just take the first on the list as an example of what I mean:

It claims that “a substantially larger organisation with increased resources” would have “greater influence and lobbying power in matters of concern to Earth Scientists, at both National and state levels”. I have been an active Member of the GSA since 1962, partly because it has provided me with opportunites at many levels to discuss geology wih fellow Members, partly because as an Australian geologist I have felt a responsibility to support the national society in all its beneficial functions already listed above, and partly becuase it has enabled me to join with others in initiating and organising such major conferences as the first International Archaean Symposium in 1970 and the Fourth Internationsl Kimberlite Conference in 1986. I am not a Member of the GSA because I want it to exert influence on anybody in “matters of concern to Geoscience” or to me. With a present membership of about 2400, and given that geologists tend to hold robustly individual views on everything under the sun, it seems to me that a larger organisation would only have greater difficulty in reducing their diverse views to a worthwhile statement on any matter it saw fit to “lobby” on. Personally I wish to remain a Member of a scientific society, not a lobby group.

D. Possible disadvantages of the proposed merger? As the DP is silent on this subject I will use more space to fill this gap.

First, I do not believe that the GSA should seek any role in the accreditation of its members for particular public purposes, or in validation of qualifications. This view is based on substantial experience. I was President from 1969 to 1971, at the height of the “nickel boom”, when rumours were rife that some geologists were using their immediate knowledge of drilling results unethically. Soon after election I was asked by the ASX for a definition of “Geologist”. The Executive of the day agonised over the implications of the question, and took the view that professional legislation for eologists would be the best mechanism to secure (?restore) public confidence in the geological profession. As Convener of a consequent Legislation Committee from 1971-1975 I took on the task of producing, for Western Australia, a draft Geologists Act, with the cooperation of the W.A. Crown Law Department; through unfortunate circumstances that Act narrowly failed to pass into State laws, but the detailed work done by the Legislation Committee in comparing the parallel Acts that control many other professions (e.g. Medical Practitioners, Lawyers, Architects, Veterinarians) convinced me that legislation remains the best mechanism to regulate the geological profession. By merging with the AIG, which has entered the fields of professional accreditation and qualification (and good luck to it!), the GSA would become responsible for complex, time- and money-consuming activities that are outside the professional competence of geologists, have nothing to do with science, and are ultimately ineffective. Codes of Conduct, and associated sanctions of Exclusion, sound fine; but without legislative back-up they are weak weapons to enforce professional standards. I urge that GSA members considering their stance on the proposed merger should look hard at the implications of becoming involved in these fields. The DP pushes the case for involvement by drawing attention to the involvement of, for example, the Geological Society of London, in Professional Registration. I have been a Fellow (now Senior Fellow) of that Society for 60 years this month, and point out that the GSL works in a totally different professional environment, that it is very much wealthier and larger than the GSA, and that a proportion of its Fellows still wonder whether the move into that area, relatively recently in its 200-year history, was a wise one.

Secondly, enthusiasts for the merger should examine closely its proposed administrative structure, as foreshadowed in the DP. It is to be “governed” by a Board of twelve persons “elected by the membership at large” (but how? and with what provision for regional representation?) with the power to appoint a thirteenth with “financial/legal expertise” (the two are very different). Note in passing that on p.2 of the DP the merger committee apparently believes the GSA has a Board. “The Board would include an Executive Committee consisting of Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer elected by Board members (I read this as “by the Board”) and the Executive Officer..”. Note that the Editor-in-Chief, a key person for the scientific effectiveness of the GSA, is not automatically a member of the proposed Board, as he/she is of the present Council. Reporting to the Board would be nine (yes, that’s nine) new standing committees(of unspecified size), each including “at least one Board member”, and all presumably appointed by the Board, although this is not stated. In addition to its function of “governing” the merged body the Board is to be responsible for its “strategic policy”. Whatever that may mean, I would have thought that the policies of the GSA were implicit in its existing Rules, and I would be comfortable for that to remain the case. It does not seem to me that this untested, cumbersome, and committee-ridden structure promises to bring much general benefit to Australian geoscience. And I would be greatly saddened if Australia, virtually alone among developed nations, lacked a Geological Society headed by a President, rather than an Earth Science Institute headed by a Chairperson.

Having got all that off my chest I have one final comment. If a point is reached where the decision whether to go ahead with a particular merger model is voted on, the present proposal in the DP is (as required by the Rules) that three months notice would be given of the General Meeting at which the vote will take place, at which time approval by 75% of the Members present will be required. In a matter so fundamentally affecting the future of the GSA, it seems to me commonsense that a postal ballot of the whole membership should be held, but I see no provision in the Rules for this. It could certainly be seen as unfair if a decision were dependent on whether the decisive General Meeting took place in Canberra or Perth; and it would be instructive to know what proportion of the GSA membership has been present at recent General Meetings.]]> alectrendall Merger DiscussionsWed, 22 Jul 2009 13:18:29 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,82,82#msg-82 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,82,82#msg-82
I currently work in industry and my only concern regarding the merger would be the protection of the efforts and inroads made by the AIG to date regarding the upholding of the JORC code. Reporting standards and technical standards should not be lost and presumably a subcommittee or entity within the new organisation will be etsablished to oversee the correct use of the JORC code and the recently established ethics committee.]]> Cam Merger DiscussionsWed, 22 Jul 2009 02:47:20 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,81#msg-81 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,81#msg-81 samlees Merger DiscussionsTue, 21 Jul 2009 05:51:52 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,80#msg-80 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,80#msg-80
To me, the debate is a bit like considering merging the AFL and the ARU on the basis that they are both football codes. They are both successful and relevant organisations that individually justify their existence for different reasons, so why not leave them that way?

As an exploration geoscientist, I am proud to be a member of AIG, a dynamic and vibrant organisation with a deservedly excellent reputation that consistently serves its members in a professional and cost effective manner. The Institute has remained true to its charter, that is, to improve the professional standards of its members, and the professional standing of geoscientists within the community. This has been achieved by the provision of relevant and practical symposia and publications, by fostering geoscience education in the wider community, and by encouraging and upholding a high standard of ethics and professionalism. AIG is absolutely relevant to me as an industry geoscientist.

The GSA is a Learned Society, and also fulfils its charter to promote geoscience. I remain a member because I think that Learned Societies are important, but I find very little content of personal relevance in TAG and even less in AJES. I do read TAG cover to cover, but stratigraphic nomenclature considerations and detailed news of research grants etc fail to excite. And many industry geoscientists subscribe to Economic Geology or Mineralium Deposita rather than (or as well as) AJES because the content is more relevant to them. Similarly, while geography alone prevents me from attending MEGWA meetings, I can’t remember the last time that the topic of a GSA monthly talk inspired my attendance.

This is my personal experience, and is certainly not intended as criticism of GSA. I am certain that many government and academic-based geoscientists could justifiably argue the opposite case. The point of my argument is that both the Institute and the Society are separately relevant to their members, but I believe that there is a serious risk of making a merged entity half relevant to most of their expanded membership base.]]> Geoff Johnson Merger DiscussionsMon, 20 Jul 2009 07:07:13 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,79#msg-79 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,43,79#msg-79 Robyn Stutchbury Merger DiscussionsMon, 20 Jul 2009 03:09:23 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,78#msg-78 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,78#msg-78
I've got a feeling that many of the people criticising the current proposal on the basis of 'loss of focus' would use the same argument to any PESA/AIG merger (though I could be wrong).

It just seems to me that most people are concerned about being members of the AIG for purposes of getting their JORC ticket rather than for the purpose of 'supporting geoscientists'. Hence my comment about we may as well call it the AIMG. I agree (like Sam said) that any geologist is welcome, but I see very little professional need to being a member unless I go back to working in minerals. At least by being a member of the GSA (which I used to be) I could read a journal that might have relevance to me on a professional level from time to time.

Don't get me wrong, I am proud to be a member of the AIG. I just (to be honest) get very little out of it on a professional level and it's not like I am working in some obscure branch of geology.]]> danwalding Merger DiscussionsSun, 19 Jul 2009 11:18:34 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,77,77#msg-77 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,77,77#msg-77
I do not believe that the two could merge and maintain the professional standing of the MAIG tag (or whatever it is to become). I read a lot of TSX NI 43-101 technical reports in the course of my own research and a surprising number are written by members of AIG (when also members of many other professional bodies), many of whom are not resident in Australia (or appear to have even lived here). This indicates that either the AIG is very cheap (and thus cost should not be a hindrance to membership) or that it is very well regarded as an institute for its members, I prefer to think the latter. Further, will the GSA's requirement that "Applicants normally resident outside Australia are not eligible for this (Member) category..." apply to the new Groups Member rules - thus exclude all these current AIG members?

Perhaps an association between the two as mentioned elsewhere with a discounted membership for those members of both organisations is a better way of increasing the GSA membership base and allowing both organisations to combine some of their resources and their bargaining power whilst maintaining their unique identities (an option I am sure the merger committees have assessed and for one reason or another discarded).

If however, I am in the minority and a merger goes ahead, I propose a name change to Australasian Institute of Geoscientists (removing the one country focus and thus perhaps broadening the appeal of membership to NZ, PNG, the south pacific and even asia - and maintaining the recognized MAIG tag). Also I believe there will have to be a different membership category for members that pass the 5 years industry experience requirement or are eligible to be classed as Competent Persons for reporting requirements verses the standard membership such as utilizing the Associate Member category for those that do not fulfill the CP requirements and Member for those that do, and Fellow for our most learned and experienced members, in addition to the student, graduate and RPGeo categories. This should go someway to removing any ambiguity as to where a Member of the institute stands in the eyes of the ASX and other regulatory bodies.]]> RonReid Merger DiscussionsSun, 19 Jul 2009 03:54:43 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,76#msg-76 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,76#msg-76AIG is just not mineral geos but all sorts of geoscientists the current president Martin Robinson is a hydrogeologist. As a former councillor I know council has tried to attact non mieral geoscientists but the mineral people are the largest block of geoscientists in Australia and JORC competency is a compelling reason to join. AIG has quite a few geotech members who often require RPGeo registration. Any geoscientist is welcome

I am against the merger as it seems to be a takeover by GSA when AIG is a ell respected professional Institute.]]> samlees Merger DiscussionsSat, 18 Jul 2009 05:06:27 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,75#msg-75 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,75#msg-75
I have no problem with petroleum geologists joining the AIG at all (early in my career I was a petroleum geo). It is also one of the weaknesses of the AIG that I referred to in my post but they are well represented in PESA.

My point was that as a professional geo (whether mineral, coal or oil & gas) you should be able to use the membership of the AIG as a demonstration to investors and regulators of your experience and qualifications which are suitable to sign off on reviews, valuations, technical assessments or resource calculations.

Otherwise, I think we agree. There might be more merit in AIG and PESA merging.

Regards,
Andrew]]> richards2341 Merger DiscussionsThu, 16 Jul 2009 15:46:42 +0000 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,74#msg-74 http://forum.gsa.org.au/read.php?3,69,74#msg-74-------------------------------------------------------

> I work extensively overseas where the AIG is
> recognised as a professional, regulatory body for
> Australian geologists. It is recognised along with
> the AusIMM as a professional organisation and, in
> both Australia and overseas, membership of either
> organisation can suffice as evidence of
> appropriate qualifications.

Not trying to single you out here at all richards2341. I'm just highlighting your point which has also been raised by others.

I object to the fact that the AIG is basically for minerals geos only. I want to belong to a professional body that is for petroleum geos as well (and hydro, academics, etc). We may as well call it the AIMG and be done with it in its present form. I would like to hope that the merged entity would be more inclusive of *all* geologists.

The AusIMM may well be well regarded in minerals circles but it has absolutely no relevance to or understanding of my field. And the AIG in its current state is just the AusIMM without the hangers on. I want to bridge the gap between the soft and hard rock camps. I want to see an entity that can look after professional geologists of all persuations. I want to see an entity that petroleum geologists feel a real professional imperative to join. I think the merged entity could be that, and that's why I am in favour of the merger.

I see the merged entity as basically the AIG with a wider membership base and a journal (AJES). I don't see why so many people are afraid of that.

And by the way, I don't really care if we keep the name AIG (or GSA). There's probably merit in keeping the name the same so that people don't get confused. Just so long as we keep 'Earth Science' out of it, i'm not fussy :)]]> danwalding Merger DiscussionsThu, 16 Jul 2009 15:22:01 +0000