Read on for options on next steps.
This campaign began in reaction to the announcement made by the St Kilda PCYC CEO, Chris Potaris, that the Inkerman St facility would close and all unfunded programs would stop running on October 3rd. Tomorrow.
He also announced that the organisation would transform itself from a member owned Incorporated Association into a Company Limited by Guarantee and position itself as a peak body organisation on the promise of access to State funding.
The intention of this campaign was to make it known that the St Kilda and surrounds community don’t want to lose a community owned asset and to object to the manner in which the CEO and Board have acted. It was also to find full members of the St Kilda PCYC (who we finally resolved are annual members) so that they could exercise their member rights and call a Special General Meeting. And on this last point, the CEO and Board sought legal advice to reinterpret what it meant to be a ‘full member’ and reduced the number of voting members from 600 reported on Consumer Affairs Victoria to 8.
We could take you down that rabbit hole, tell you about formally raising a grievance as permitted in the constitution: entertained but ultimately ignored. We could tell you about our own legal advice and the options that that open: still available to us, but with unintended consequences. Or we could tell you about the group of local not-for-profit leaders that work in early education, social outreach, foster care, governance and commercial management that proposed to engage constructively and in good faith to inspire the Board of what might be possible, and importantly, sustainable: rebuffed. As was wryly observed in a WhatsApp chat: “we are chasing our tails.” And we are. And that’s by design.
So it’s worth asking: what are we actually fighting for?
Are we fighting for a building or is it an inclusive St Kilda community space where programs can be delivered, fostering social connection and opportunities to engage young people at risk?
Are we fighting for a gym or a social enterprise that uses a gym to bring together people of all ages to connect around a shared activity and whose fees pay for those who can’t afford them?
Are we fighting for an organisation that has lost its way or for a community that has found its own?
---------------------------------
It's worth noting that:
- this issue has been political from the outset. I’m not here to say that any one politician is better than the other, but right now, everyone is vying for the position of “saving” St Kilda PCYC, and would love to do so with 1200 or so people to claim the win.
- the CEO and Board have not acted in good faith at any point in the last month. It is impossible to trust anything the CEO, Board and their nominated representative can say. Even being “a good person” is hard to accept given the conduct of the Board not just in this past month, but over years.
- All of this distracts from the people who benefit and have benefited from a community space that is St Kilda PCYC. This was supposed to a separate email, but it’s been a busy week. Read the stories of those people here. Read it now before the next bit. Then read it again.
--------------------------------
Options
1: We Fight
We have a lawyer. They specialise in fraud. We have a case and we can seek an injunction. Or, we spill the board and replace the CEO (assuming that the earlier interpretation of the rules holds).
Pros:
- It might feel good for a minute
Cons:
- The plaintiff is exposed (eg if there is funding in the pipeline, which we believe there is, and an injunction stops that from happening, then those losses are included in costs and damages)
- The name is mud. So even if you win, no one wants to fund an organisation that has been mismanaged for over 10 years and is have its affairs looked at (again)
- So you gain control of your own organisation. Still mud and the board and CEO have just been replaced. Which funding bodies are lining up to get behind that?
It’s a lot of work
2: We Incorporate and offer to rent the gym
Pros:
- The gym - or a version of it exists and people can use it
- We have relationships with a lot of groups that can return or start using it
Cons:
- The CEO and Board are still there
- The building can still be sold, rents increased, lease terminated or, like the constitution, full of clauses that will make it unsustainable.
- It’s not your PCYC anymore - local or state
- It’s a lot of work and it will always be compared to what came before.
3: We do nothing (i.e. tacitly support government intervention)
Pros:
- The building won’t be sold in the short term (probably)
Cons:
- The gym is still closed until 22 October which is when they would announce something like that
- The CEO and Board are still there.
- The independent trainers (many working with NDIS clients) have already had to find somewhere else to work. The staff have gone. The young people are gone.The peak body will still happen.
4: We incorporate and focus on what really matters: creating an inclusive community hub for St Kilda. A place where young people feel safe, supported and connected and where the whole community can come together.
Pros:
- Deliver on the promise of PCYC in a way that the Board and CEO appear to have no interest in
- Build on the enormous good will and generosity of the people who have come together to tell the world about the importance of 179 Inkerman St
- It’s focused on people and community
- It’s constructive and positive and can bring people, and organisations with it
Cons:
- The building. Obviously. It’ll stay with whatever the peak body is
- It’s a lot of work - but work that’s focused on creating something
- There is no guarantee of funding, but we would have programs that would be very hard to not fund
- It’s not like before
I got involved in this because I was outraged by a community owned asset being taken over by a group of people who have no connection to the sector that they are working in. Over the past month, I have met so many people who have lived experience of the impact that space like 179 Inkerman can have on someone’s life. I have met volunteers who have dedicated themselves to making that space into a place where people felt welcomed and safe. There is no question that a community space brings all of that together. But it’s for the community, not a corporatised charity.
Conversely, I have been gobsmacked at the breathtaking arrogance of the CEO and the Board and I cannot understand why any funding body or government would reward mismanagement and dysfunction with funds that will see them remain in their in the organisation while also not saving the building - it’s not yours if you can’t vote.
--------------------------------
In 1947, Olive Johnston thought that it might be an idea to invite the kids pinching fruit off her tree to help her pick all of them and maybe do something with them. A few jam jars later, she established St Kilda Boys Club. You can Google the history. The point is, Olive did have the CEO and Board have not and invited people in.
So what would Olive do?
What would you do?