Jennie The advertisement for a National Representative for New Zealand must surely be in error. There is already a position for a regional representative to cover the whole of New Zealand so there seems little point in having a National Representative as well. It looks to me as though the Situations Vacant page in the Members' Room has not been fully updated and some posts are included on the list that have already been filled. Looking back at the Committee minutes I see that the idea of National Representatives was introduced in an educational strategy document presented to the July 2012 committee meeting. http://www.one-name.org/members/minutes/2012Jul/AgendaWithLinks.pdf Here's a link to the relevant report: http://www.one-name.org/members/minutes/2012Jul/05ii%20Updated_country_based _analysis_July_2012.pdf In case the long link breaks here's a short URL to the report: http://tinyurl.com/oobx7tn There is no mention of a national rep for New Zealand though the possibility of a National Rep for Australia is discussed. The minutes record that the report was carried: http://www.one-name.org/members/minutes/2012Jul/Minutes_07Jul2012.pdf The National Rep posts, including a post for New Zealand, were subsequently advertised in the Chairman's newsflash dated September 2012. I know we now have National Reps for the USA and Canada but I can find no record of a National Rep for New Zealand ever having been appointed. The regional reps in Australia never saw the need for a national rep anyway so that idea was abandoned. As you obviously have lots of ideas and considerable experience with the media perhaps you can share your ideas with the regional reps in Australia and offer to help out. Best wishes Debbie Kennett Member no. 4554 Cruwys/Cruise/Cruse one-name study -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jennie Fairs via Sent: 15 February 2015 23:34 To: 'Anne Brady'; goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] re National Rep I am sure that Anne is doing a superb job as a rep in NZ but if there are only 4 members in the south island then I am still amazed that there is a call out for a National Rep. Cannot a National Rep also be construed as a second rep? Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that the Guild has budgeted additional money to grow the membership in Australia/New Zealand and that was why they needed national reps for both countries - I guess to oversee how that money was spent. Obviously the Australian reps feel they are able to use the additional money without someone else involved. And I am sure that Anne is more than capable to also put any extra money to good use without the need of a national rep. So in this age of "transparency" how is the Guild able to still justify a national rep for NZ (with such small numbers) and not one for Australia? I seriously hope it has nothing to do with any extra monies that the individual state reps might gain. And my query has nothing to do with the fact that I did put my hand up for the national role for Australia (at the time I felt I could bring my work in the Australian media to the table) but was advised it was no longer a position required and I was happy with that decision (too many cooks etc). But with recent discussions relating to whether the Guild is taking the right or wrong direction with its databases, I'm concerned with how the Guild plans to grow - particularly Down Under. Jennie Fairs Edenborough ONS