Geological Society of Australia Forums

GSA merger committee update & clarifications (1 reply)

gsa — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:12:45 +0000

GSA-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

JORC Competency and Membership of the AIG/Merged entity (1 reply)

Farnarkel — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:15:55 +0000

I think there has been some ill-formed discussion going on here regarding membership of the AIG-GSA merged entity and how that affects being a Competent Person under the JORC Code.

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.

GSA-AIG Merger (5 replies)

katy_evans — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:17:40 +0000

The committee of the West Australian Division of the Geological Society of Australia discussed the GSA-AIG merger last night at our August meeting, and those present were unanimously in favour of the merger.

The merger is a mistake (5 replies)

Greg Corbett — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:30:46 +0000

The letter below has been submited to AIG News signed by several AIG past and current Councillors including 2 past Presidents.
Greg 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

Merger and the Geophysicist (no replies)

WHITE2630 — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:12:49 +0000

If the AIG were to merge with the Geophysics society instead how would the non geophysical members of the AIG feel. !!!!!

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

Merger (no replies)

Ned Overton — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:31 +0000

Ken Glasson and Lindsay Ingall founded the AIG in the early 1980s to fill a need not met by the AusIMM, the GSA [both of which had been established long before] or any other professional body. Ken had previously been an AusIMM Counsellor and also geology lecturer at Sydney University, so he had an insider’s view of how unsatisfactory the then results were of trying to accommodate the diverse professional interests of geologists of varying hue, as well as engineers and metallurgists. The AIG was established to address a real, unfulfilled professional need.

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

GSA-AIG proposed merger (no replies)

Cam — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:47:20 +0000

There are a number of synergies for both parties and there is a good opportunity to take a more unified approach in the development and protection of earth sciences within Australia.

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.

Why the need? (no replies)

RonReid — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:54:43 +0000

I am one of those members of both organisations, and whilst at first was for a merger, after much thought I now do not see the need for one. I am an AIG member for the proffessional recognition, support and networking opportunities it brings and for JORC/CP purposes. As an institute dedicated to geologists I found it more relevant to me than AusIMM, of which I used to be a member. I am a Member of the GSA so that I have access to the Science, the journal and to maintain connections to the research side of geology. I get both these memberships for less than one AusIMM membership and am happy to continue to pay this (even pay more if I have to). I attend both the GSA and the MEGWA meetings and the two are very different, in conversation, in talk topics and even in atmosphere. From my conversations it appears that the GSA members are largely for the merger (perhaps in order to obtain the MAIG post-nominal without the extra minor expense or dare I say it jump the 5 year hurdle?), whereas the AIG members are generally against it - largely for the fear of the focus of the body being lost to an academic and political agenda and the perceived damage to the member status.

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.

AIG - GSA merger, precedents not working (no replies)

A Dacey — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:23:43 +0000

Firmly against any Merger.

In my experience any merger of any two organisations is almost bound to eventually fail later in life, due to both differing views and the "face" that the newly formed organisation portrays to the public not accepted by its own members.

As an example I'd like to highlight the following examples:

Geological Society of London
I am a Fellow of the Geological Society of London, this is an amalgamation of several former geo-scientific and industry bodies. It does not now serve the geologist involved in exploration and mining, petroleum yes, mining no. I am a Fellow solely so as to be able to access the library.

IOM3
The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in the UK, of which I am a member, is now the Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining. I used to enjoy reading the magazine as I found it kept me up to date with what was going on in the industry, latest techniques, events etc etc. The magazine, now called "Materials World", is filled with irrelevant articles such as the following in the latest issue:
* Designing out bugs – hospital furniture
* Algae for bone grafts
* The maze of mixed plastics recycling
Clearly highly relevant and important topics which any exploration geologist should be made aware of.

Within the new IOM3 organisation there are 17 technical divisions, societies and associations which act as special interest groups, forming a focus for activities within specific sectors. My division is the IMMa - International Mining & Minerals Association, which sounds very much like the "Institute of Mining and Metallurgy" IMM. To compound my frustration the Institute is now considering merging with the "Wood Institute".
Within the next few years I can see disgruntled members band together and regroup outside and form a new society, my guess is it will be called the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy or something very similar.

Mergers between organisations do not work in my opinion, no matter how closely related they may be on the outside, when you get down to the nitty-gritty members often have wildly differing views on certain aspects of the running which results in members departing and new organisations forming.
If the AIG wants to increase it's membership maybe they should look outside of Australia, New Zealand is an obvious target for increasing membership initially, Kiwis are less likely to want to join the GSA as they would the AIG (I'm originally from across the ditch and know very few members of the GSA but lots from the AIG). Dual or combined membership will not influence their decision to join. Additionally more and more European geologists are turning to the AIG as their "competant person" regulatory body, under the banner of “Australian Geological Society” or what ever is proposed I wonder if this will continue?

The AIG has become an internationally recognised body with one of the strongest code of ethics and self regulation currently out there and attracts international members for this very reason. When it comes to designating persons as competent with respect to signing off public company disclosures, resource estimations, exploration results etc the addition of the 'RPGeo' post nominal is further respected.

Smaller more focused organisations sometimes represent their respective members better than larger, more diverse ones; in the case of GSA combining with AIG or “research, theory, national geology and public awareness” combined with “international mineral exploration and mining” I think bigger is not necessarily better.

Andrew Dacey

apologies for the dual post.

What's in a name? (5 replies)

richards2341 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:51:52 +0000

From the outset let me say I have significant concerns about the proposed AIG-GSA merger. Both organisations have strengths and weaknesses and at first glance there seems a lot of merit in the merger. However, the different aims and philosophies could lead to a loss of focus particularly in the industry-oriented AIG.

Regardless, why aren't we keeping the name Australian Institute of Geoscientists? (....and to propose Institute of Australian Geoscientists or similar is just bizarre).

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. The AIG has a charter, powers, work experience criteria and a focus from which regulators and non-geologists take comfort. I doubt that few are aware of the GSA outside academic circles.

What's in a name? Possibly a lot, actually.

It has taken time and effort to get to this point and I don't see any benefit whatsoever in muddying the waters with a name change. On the contrary. Apart from the name confusion the merging of membership types and experience criteria may lower the status of AIG members with investors and regulators.

To digress; in representing the interests of geoscience the AIG writes from and for the coalface. The GSA focuses on education, training and the science. There is an overlap but there is a stronger differentiation. And in promoting geoscience two submissions to a regulatory body may have more impact than one.

There must be other ways in which the two organisations can combine resources to be more effective and cut costs. These might include such things as discounted associate membership by members of one organisation in the other; combined journal/newsletter/publications; grouping of the accounting/administration functions, etc etc.

I have come late to the debate having just received the AIG circular - but I see little evidence that this merger will ultimately work to benefit members. It also seems to me that AIG members are making all of the concessions in this merger.

In fact, if we are to be guided by the excrutiatingly bland Mission Statement with the aim to "improve the professional standing of Earth Scientists" listed last and the plan to have 13 Board members (13!!) for a 4 year term, I am feeling very uneasy indeed.

AIG GSA Merger (1 reply)

Roger Thomson — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:55:22 +0000

As an AIG member, I'm against the merger. AIG is a dynamic, growing professional organisation serving industry geologists in a most cost effective manner. I agree with Greg Corbett's and Sam Lees' comments. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

AIS/GSA merger (2 replies)

gregmacrae — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:51:37 +0000

This is a very bad idea! AIG is a professional organisation for working geologists; GSA is an academic organisation open to anyone interested in geology to join. The aims of each of these organisations are very different. Do not merge!!!!!!!!!!

Management of the merged entity (3 replies)

Julian Vearncombe — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:13:42 +0000

This is great news, I fully support the proposed AIG – GSA merger. I am a member of both organisations.

Back in 1998 I wrote to the newsletters of the AIG, GSA and AusIMM suggesting that more cooperation and a merger were essential for them to have a critical mass in lobbying government and promoting the science. (I now understand that for anti-competition reasons related to JORC the AusIMM has to remain separate.)

Whilst supportive of the merger, I am reminded of the reason for the formation of the AIG. The AusIMM was (some will say still is) Melbourne and mining centric, and the GSA was too academic for the industry-based practioners, especially consultants. Rather than lobby for change in the existing societies, they found it easier to form a new society. That the AIG and GSA are proposing to merge indicates that the problems of the past are in the past. The intention of the newly merged body is clearly broad-based, to serve academia, government, industry and consultants and it is clearly intended to be country-wide. This should avoid the difficulties encountered two decades ago. However, I would like to see some constitutional requirement for a balance board. I think we need some (not to harsh) guidelines that ensure the board and committees are balanced in terms of member area of employment and geographic location. We need hard and soft rock, and we definitely need East and West coast representation.

Finally, I dislike “Earth Science Australia”, it might as well be called the “BMR mark4”! What about “The Australian Earth Sciences Society” (note the plural in sciences).

GSA - AIG Merger Discussion Paper (24 replies)

gsa — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:30:15 +0000

Dear Member,

The Australian Institute of Geoscientists and the Geological Society of Australia have been examining the potential benefits of a merger to create a national body of some 3600 members to represent the interests of Australian Earth Science.

Merger discussions date back to 2004, but closer examination of the potential advantages and disadvantages commenced in September 2008 following formation by AIG and GSA of a joint Merger Committee. Committee discussions to date have focussed on understanding each organisation, their respective roles and the potential benefits of a merger.

The joint Merger Committee is currently developing a detailed financial model and governance structure for a new organisation representing Australian Earth Science, to be formed initially by a merger between AIG and GSA. The Discussion Paper below is the first stage of communicating with you about the status of the merger negotiations.

Facilities to encourage comment and feedback from you (e.g. blog) have been established. Feedback will be used to gauge member support for the merger proposal and further refine the merger model. If the feedback if positive, the refined merger proposal would be presented to all members of the two societies for voting either at the end of this year or early next year.

Please send your feedback to:

Comment through the blog on your website: www.gsa.org.au or www.aig.org.au

Write to: merger@gsa.org.au

Write to: tag@gsa.org.au

Write to: aig@aig.org.au

AIG — GSA Merger Discussion Paper

June 2009

Background

The Australian Institute of Geoscientists and the Geological Society of Australia have been examining the potential benefits of a merger to create a national body of some 3600 members to represent the interests of Australian Earth Science.

There is substantive agreement within the joint Merger Committee on the key issues for an effective merger and the distribution of this Discussion Paper has the support of the AIG Council and GSA National Executive. The purpose of this document is to provide information to AIG and GSA members on the proposed structure, governance and functions of the merged entity, an outline of the mechanisms for feedback by members on the proposal; the process of integrating feedback into a revised proposal, and, if feedback is positive, a timeline for voting on the proposed merger and for commencement of the new merged organisation.

It is important to note that this Discussion Paper is an information document only, prepared to facilitate informed discussion of the proposal within both GSA and AIG, and to seek feedback from members that will be used by the Merger Committee to develop a definitive proposal to be voted on by members. This paper reflects a desire for the merger discussions to be open and transparent and does not imply endorsement of the proposed merger by either the AIG Council or the GSA Board.

A merger would only proceed following a vote of members of both organisations following preparation of a definitive proposal by the merger committee incorporating feedback from members in response to this paper.

Current information on each of the organisations is available from their web sites:

AIG – www.aig.org.au/

GSA – www.gsa.org.au/

Mission Statement for merged organisation

Our purpose is to promote Earth Science and support Earth Scientists in meeting the strategic needs of society.

We will achieve this by:

Encouraging excellence in Earth Science education, research and professional practice;

Ensuring that Earth Science fully informs public policy;

Raising community awareness and respect for Earth Science and its practitioners; and

Improving the professional standing of Earth Scientists.

Value Proposition

The merged entity would represent the professional and learned interests of Australian Earth Scientists. The underlying driver for the merger would be to enhance the activities of both organisations for the benefit of their members.

Potential benefits include:

Creation of a substantially larger organisation with increased resources (see Appendix at end of document), and greater influence and lobbying power in matters of concern to Earth Science, at both the National and state levels;

Enhanced recognition of Earth Science by the community through the greater visibility and influence of the organisation, and broader recognition of the role Earth Scientists play in sustaining standards of living in Australia;

Enhancement of all the existing benefits currently provided to members, including publications, conferences, information and news of relevance to geoscientists, awards and other means of professional recognition;

Continued emphasis on the ongoing improvement of professional standards, backed by an enforceable Code of Ethics overseen by the Board;

Potential for lower unit operating costs for managing the new organisation and its events through economies of scale;

Greater circulation and impact of publications and electronic media with benefits to authors, publishers and advertisers, as well as greater penetration of news and information;

Broader exposure for members to Earth Science activities and events, especially in fields outside an individual’s current field of practice or expertise;

All members would have access to Professional Registration and enhanced opportunities for professional development activities with access to independent verification of these;

Better coordination and more effective investment in Earth Science education at tertiary and school levels, together with enhanced opportunities for promoting Earth Science careers to graduates;

Enhanced ability to negotiate specific benefits for members (e.g. discounted services, professional insurances, commercial and personal financial services).

Risks

A larger organisation would have the potential to be seen as less responsive to members concerns and to lose focus by trying to accommodate the requirements of a broader cross-section of Australian Earth Scientists. Furthermore, the two organisations have different cultures reflecting differences in the activities and services they provide to members, and in their membership profiles.

However, these are issues for all large organisations, including GSA and AIG. We believe that the governance structure for the new entity, involving an elected Board, continuation of the current state and territory based branches/divisions that provide ongoing services and activities for members, continuation of specialist groups, and an emphasis on professional issues including the recognition of Competent Persons and continuation of the RPGeo scheme, would ensure the diverse groups, views and cultures within the merged organisation are well represented.

Structure and Governance

Legal advice suggests that the most appropriate structure for the combined entity is a not-for-profit Incorporated Association. As a result, GSA members would first vote on changes to its rules to establish its new governance structure and AIG would then vote on transferring assets and members to the new organisation and on the winding up of the AIG.

A Board of 13 members, 12 of whom will be elected by the membership at large, would govern the new organisation. The Board would have the right to appoint one non-member, with full voting rights, to ensure financial/legal expertise within the Board. Board members would be initially elected for 2 and 4 year terms and then 4 years. The staggered terms would ensure that at any one time only half the Board is up for re-election to ensure experience and corporate knowledge are retained.

The Board would include an Executive Committee consisting of Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer elected by Board members, and the Executive Officer as an ex-officio member.

The Board would set strategic policy for the merged organisation and have ultimate responsibility for its assets.

Committees: Reporting to the Board would be the following standing committees: Finance and Risk; Professional Registration (Competent Person/RPGeo); Membership, Publications Management; Ethics and Standards; Complaints; Education; Awards; External Affairs and Communication. Each Board Committee would include at least one Board member and draw on the best available expertise within the membership.

The current location based entities – AIG’s state branches and GSA’s Divisions – would combine, and continue to provide the local events and activities for members with the advantages of less duplication of effort and competition for resources, and a larger membership base to support these activities. The GSA’s Specialist Groups, representing specific research and professional areas, would continue. Current Specialist Groups of likely interest to AIG members include Applied Geochemistry, Economic Geology, Coal Geology and Environmental Engineering and Hydrogeology.

Code of Ethics and Professional Standards

Both organisations have a Code of Ethics, which would be merged.

A vital professional issue would be an enforceable Code of Ethics, complaints and disciplinary systems, and mandatory professional standards (such as the JORC and VALMIN Codes) and the existing AIG standards would be adopted in the merged entity.

Further, the well-established mechanisms for handling professional standards and practice issues within AIG would be replicated in a merged organisation. These mechanisms would be supervised by the Professional Registration Committee, the Ethics and Standards Committee, and the Complaints Committee.

Competent Person Recognition

The current AIG Member category requires a minimum of 5 years experience and is recognised by the post-nominal MAIG. This is a necessary pre-requisite for qualification as a “Competent Person” for public reporting under the JORC Code, to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). As currently defined under Clause 10 of the JORC Code 2004, “a ‘Competent Person’ is a person who is a Member or Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, or of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, or of a ‘Recognised Overseas Professional Organisation’(‘ROPO’) included in a list promulgated from time to time”.

Prior to the merger, we would ensure that the Joint Ore Reserves Committee that oversees the JORC Code, the ASX and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission recognize as Competent Persons appropriately qualified members from the merged organisation. The minimum requirement for such recognition would be 5 years professional experience, as currently required of AIG members.

Compliance with the VALMIN Code, is currently binding on members of the AIG when preparing public independent expert reports as required by the Corporations Act covering mineral and petroleum assets and securities. It would be binding on all members of the merged entity, when preparing such reports.

The “advisory” status of the Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Geothermal Resources and Geothermal Reserves would also apply to all members of the merged entity.

Professional Registration

AIG currently provides Professional Registration for members, based on commitment to and independent verification of personal professional development, through its Registered Professional Geoscientist scheme (RPGeo). This scheme would be transferred to the amalgamated organisation so that RPGeo would remain a separate, voluntary accreditation programme for all members seeking formal recognition of their commitment to Continuing Professional Excellence and Ongoing Development.

A larger organisation would increase the opportunities for such professional development and increase the awareness of these opportunities across a much larger potential market. The Geological Society of London and numerous state and provincial based organisations in the USA and Canada operate similar Registered Professional Geologist schemes. The AIG Registration Board is currently examining the potential benefits of reciprocity arrangements with several groups and agreements resulting from this process would accrue to members of the merged entity.

Member Categories and Rates

All current members of AIG and GSA would automatically be members of the new organisation at their current status.

The current rate for standard membership of the GSA is $165 per annum and for the AIG $99 per annum. Financial modelling is still being carried out on future rates for the merged entity, but it is proposed to instigate a three year transition phase, during which member rates from the two groups would be aligned. For the first year of operation of the new merged organisation, slated to be 2011, the membership rate of former AIG members would remain at their current standard rate ($99) whereas the rate for former GSA members would decrease by $15 to $150. AIG members would not receive AJES but would be able to purchase an electronic copy for an additional $16 (for a total of $115) or the hard copy by paying the full GSA rate. In year 2 (2012), the standard rate for former GSA members would remain at $150 whereas the AIG rate would increase to $125 and include the online version of AJES. In Year 3, a uniform rate would be determined by the Board. The year 3 rates would offer both hard copy and online AJES options to all members with a $15 reduction for online.

Capitation fees

The GSA provides capitation fees to its divisions to enable them to undertake their various activities and it has been agreed that funding support to the divisions would continue.

Awards

Both entities currently make a number of national and divisional/specialist group awards. These would continue in the merged organisation.

Publications

The merged entity would continue to produce a learned publication, a member magazine, branch/divisional and specialist group newsletters and maintain a website. The Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, currently published by the GSA, would continue as the flagship publication for scholarly research papers on all aspects of Earth Science. In addition to regular articles, AJES publishes a number of thematic issues, which in 2008 included "Conceptual mineral exploration" and "Weipa Bauxite, northern Australia".

The two current member magazines (The Australian Geologist and AIG News) and the separate websites of the AIG and the GSA would be combined.

Education Foundations

AIG and GSA both currently operate approved deductible gift recipient foundations to support Earth Science education initiatives in Australia. These Foundations would be merged following establishment of a merged entity.

Timeline, Communication, Feedback and Voting

Seventy-five percent of voting members of both societies would be required to approve the merger. It is proposed that the voting would occur in two stages (as outlined below), with GSA members voting in the latter part of this year and AIG members in the early part of 2010. This two-stage process automatically follows from retention of the existing GSA Incorporated Association structure for the new combined organisation.

It requires that GSA members would first vote on the new set of rules to be drawn up by the two organisations, and a new name.

If this vote is affirmative, AIG members would then vote on joining the new organisation via the transfer of assets and members, and the subsequent winding up of AIG.

If the votes are in favour, the two organisations would formally merge in the first half of 2010. Time estimates depend on completion of a number of legal and financial actions and therefore may vary.

The following is a timeline that outlines the process that would be involved in merging the AIG and the GSA

1. Member communication (June – July 2009)

Circulate Discussion Paper to all members of both organisations to seek feedback. The feedback stage is to create opportunities for members to provide feedback on the concept of a merger and to provide input into the merger model. This document represents completion of this stage of the merger investigation process.

2. Develop new rules and supporting documents; finalise merger model (August to November 2009)

If feedback is positive, new rules for the merged entity would be finalised and submitted for approval from the ACT Registrar General; due diligence and all legal and tax requirements would be completed; and the merger model finalised.

3. Voting by GSA Members on Merger, New Rules & Name (December 2009)

The GSA must give 3 months notice for a General Meeting of members. The earliest possible time for a vote by GSA members would be November 2009.

4. Voting by AIG Members on transfer to new organisation and winding up of AIG

Following a positive vote by GSA members, AIG would hold an Extraordinary General Meeting to transfer assets and members to the former GSA entity and to subsequently wind up the company. The notice period for the AIG to hold such a meeting is 6 weeks and the vote could not take place until early 2010.

5. Establish new Earth Science Organisation (assuming affirmative vote) (by June 2010)

AIG members and assets would transfer to create the new merged entity, which already hosts the GSA members and assets, and AIG (a Company Limited by Guarantee) would be wound up. The merged entity could begin to function with an interim Board during 2010, with potential for the first elected Board to commence on 1 January 2011.

Name of the merged organisation

It has been agreed by the merger committees and National Executive/Council of the two organisations that the new merged entity would have a new name reflecting the coming together of AIG and GSA. The joint Merger Committee has been using the working title of Earth Science Australia (ESA). However, during the communication and discussion phase outlined above, members would have the opportunity to propose and discuss appropriate names and from this, three names would be selected. These names would be presented to the members for a vote.

Communication and Feedback

We encourage your feedback into the process and hope you use the facilities available to communicate your views to the National Executive of the GSA, the AIG Council and the merger committees.

The Blog will be a joint forum available until the end of July to both AIG and GSA members. The forum can be accessed by going to your prospective websites www.gsa.org.au or www.aig.org.au home page. There will be a button on the home page. The button will take you to an active forum where you can comment on the proposal. We encourage you to identify who you are or which group you belong to when commenting.

Please look for the following buttons on your web page:

AIG-GSA Merger forum

GSA-AIG Merger forum

Peter Cawood, Andrew Gleadow, Jon Hronsky, Graham Jeffress, Rick Rogerson, Jim Ross, Andrew Waltho

Attachments: Appendix — Member Statistics

Appendix -- Member Statistics

Membership

The GSA and AIG have a combined membership of 4380 with 520 members common to each organisation. Assuming a level of new members and shrinkage, we have based modelling on approximately 3600 members for the merged organisation.

Please note these statistics are approximates at the time of publishing.

Division	GSA Divisions and branches	AIG Branches
ACT	193	(1)*
NSW	403	453
NT	32	20
Qld	393	282
SA	212	101
Tas	145	40
Vic	346	141
WA	608	946
Misc	29
Broken Hill	4	(1)*
Hunter Valley	32	(1)*
Totals	2397	1983

* Included in New South Wales membership

GSA test 2 (no replies)

gsa — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:49:24 +0000

This is another test of the site.

test1 (1 reply)

gsa — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:48:46 +0000

initial test