Royal Society Should Withdraw Governance Restructuring

The New Zealand Association of Scientists has issued a statement encouraging the Royal Society Te Apārarangi (RSTA) to withdraw the proposal for a governance restructuring it has sent out for consultation. If not withdrawn, NZAS encourages the members and organisations receiving the proposal to express deep concerns.

The Royal Society Te Apārangi is a public organisation with complex duties set out in its enabling legislation – “the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities”. The New Zealand Association of Scientists is perplexed at its decision to propose a rushed restructure to make its governance look like a streamlined business, rather than a complex public good body with a challenging and diverse mission.

Co-President Troy Baisden explains, “In addition to considering the proposal, we must also ask, why is a governance reform of a public organisation rushed and marked “confidential”? The proposal would eliminate all specific representation on the RSTA’s governing council for Māori, emerging researchers, regional branches, and professional bodies. The reduction in size, justified by an extreme interpretation of trends in corporate boards, would see the council’s elected membership dominated by RSTA’s Fellows.

Control would be held only by a few members of the old guard who have succeeded in the research and academic system as it has operated over the last 30 years. All representative positions are proposed to be demoted and disempowered with representation only on an ‘advisory committee’.”

Co-President Lucy Stewart explains NZAS’s position further, “Removing the two seats which specifically give representation to Māori from the council is an enormous step backwards in the progress the RSTA has made towards moving away from its colonial past, represented by the name it was gifted - ‘Te Apārangi’ - less than two decades ago. Similarly, representation of early career researchers on the council is recent in the Society’s history. Removing it is a slap in the face to ECRs who have engaged in good faith with the RSTA.”

© Scoop Media