The Future of the Australian Map Circle

(Last updated 31 Jan 2008)

At the AMC 2007 Annual General Meeting, the topic of the future of the Australian Map Circle was raised. Should the name and purposes of the association be updated? Following on from this during 2007, the possibility of a merger with the New Zealand Map Society was also raised. This issue was discussed in more depth in AMC Newsletter no.99.

Given the location of the 2008 Annual General Meeting, and the ongoing discussions with the NZMS, it is not planned that any definitive decisions should be made on these issues at the 2008 AGM.

This page provides location where feedback from members on these topics can be recorded and viewed by all members.

Michael Ross, AMC President, October 2007
(Please see in AMC Newsletter no.99)

John Stone, 21 December 2007

1) A merger between the Australian and New Zealand map groups sounds a good idea.
2) How about Australasian Map Circle (or Society)?
3) I don't much mind a change from “circle” to “society” if you feel it necessary, though “circle” is slightly preferable, simply because it is different.

Robert Clancy, 2 Jan 2008

The 'Circle' has a long and proud history and has done much to focus interest on maps and to provide a framework for interactive interest and activities. I had gained much from my membership and in recent years saw the AMC as the focus for a wider interest in historic cartography. The personal and 'people' component of the AMC has been a particular strength.

Although I have not been party to recent discussions, I have watched from the side with great interest. I agree with the structural changes in the AMC that have been made, but I am uncertain that the argument for a 'merger' with the NZMC is at this stage persuasive. My concerns relate to three issues. First, I believe the AMC needs to have a more cohesive and thought through game plan of its own. There are issues of strengthening regional activities and developing strengths and interest planes - all of which can become diluted and sidelined in any merger, if not properly in place.

Second, I doubt we know enough about the NZMC and what commitment of time and resources is involved by the AMC (looking at local registrations in Wellington, it is not a particularly 'alive' group).
Third, I think our experience with the Wellington meeting underpins an urgent need to reappraise our own leadership and communications within the AMC before we take on new groups. I 'merged' the Sydney Map Group several years ago with the AMC, and to be honest, all that has happened is that now there is no cartographic activity in Sydney. It is attention to these details by our leadership that needs to be sorted before we become 'bigger'.

Finally, and most importantly, my recent experiences suggest that the friendly and personal nature of the AMC is under threat and that this issue should be examined before we build empires. What sort of society do we really want to be?

I am inclusive and would love to see a vibrant and exciting combined 'Circle' (I actually like the name!). However, I have witnessed too many mistakes when the leaders and the joining groups are not properly functioning and aware of long term goals. Could I suggest that we change our leadership to come up with a broadbased plan for the future to primarily provide for Australian membership, but to consider the wider issue of New Zealand. Any merger should be linked to a milestone achievement that ensures viability of regional Australia and a progressive move to agreed targets (especially re interest groups).

Greg Wood, 9 January 2008

AMC name

I don't believe the AMC name affects attitudes to membership but if others feel strongly I would not vote against a change to The Australian Map Socie ty or something similar. The financial costs of doing so should not be exorbitant.

However if the concern is that the organisation is not gaining membership or generating interest then I think it's probably worth having a more general discussion and examination of that issue. The For an organisation like ours the most tangible evidence of energy and enthusiasm are the quality and frequency of publication, particularly the Globe, (its impact would be much greater if it could be published in colour and made available for commercial sale): the annual conference program: conference cost: holding other activities during the year besides the conference for example periodic public talks under AMC auspices: public comment by AMC members on issues of interest and contention: tours of institutions and collections: etc etc.

The New Zealand Map Society?

If amalgamation is favoured, I have no particular problem with a requirement that there be at least one New Zealand resident on the AMC executive committee. However notionally all members of the AMC executive could be New Zealanders. Hence, there should be a matching requirement that the AMC executive include not less than, say, three Australian residents. 

I do have strong reservations with the idea in the newsletter that “branch” status should entitle some geographic component to a position on the AMC executive, be the “branch” New Zealand , or a group in Australia . The constitution would then need to define when a “branch” had been satisfactorily constituted, what minimum membership justified constituting a branch, the financial arrangements between branches and the organisation as a whole, what happens when a “branch” falls below a threshold membership level, who would decide when that had happened etc etc. If various geographic centres (such as the ACT) want to set up their own sub groupings of the AMC, as a way of promoting interest in cartography in that region, so much the better. But entitlement to a slot on the AMC executive should not result from that. It's essential to get the best people available on to the executive, rather than trying to factor in geographic representation.

It may also make sense to include decide that the Australian membership of the combined organisation be obliged to meet and decide, five years after amalgamation, whether they wish to continue the combined arrangement.

Other desirable changes.

A name change, and the amalgamation with New Zealand (if adopted), should be used as a reason to re-draft the AMC constitution.

a) the “purposes” of the AMC.
As drafted, the formal purposes of the AMC are narrow, far narrower than either the actual practice or intent of the AMC as I understand it. They carry a heavy “institutional” presumption. They would better emphasise that the AMC is an organisation for those interested in cartography, historical cartography, the preservation of map collections, and public utilising and accessing same.

b) emeritus status
As someone now entitled to this exaulted status, I feel I can validly propose its deletion from the constitution. Its unnecessary.

AGM and the New Zealand Conference.

At the  Canberra conference AGM I asked as to the expected cost of attendance at the “combined” New Zealand conference. I was told that it would be about the same as the Canberra Conference, just held. In point of fact the cost is many times that event. I would very much hope, as a “private” member, that future conferences return to a much lower cost structure.

I would also appreciate if the AMC executive could brief the AMC membership as to the nature of agreement between the different organisations involved in the New Zealand Conference for sharing the profits (or losses) from that event.

Roger Rees, 21 January 2008

As discussed earlier today - I concur fully with the points raised by Greg regarding the costs of the 2008 conference and also the naming of the AMC if the organisation were to be merged with NZ Map Society.

Both Effie and I had initially intended to be part of the Conference in NZ but now will not be attending.  There are two main reasons:
a.    As we would be funding this trip privately the cost for us both to attend all activities is prohibitive. (Defence did not approve this as an acceptable activity.)  We are still maintaining individual membership to the AMC.
b.    I attended the previous Conference in Hamilton in 2004, then ventured for a NZ holiday with Dorothy and Victor Prescott - this enabled the cost to be spread more evenly in our budget.  I am unable to do something similar due to current work committments.

If the organisation is to venture into joint activities,  I believe that the Executive should have control over the total cost of Conference or provide a budget that should be abided by from the Conference committee.  The previous conference in NZ which was also with the NZ mappers was of a cost similar to that paid at previous AMC conferences in Australia. Consideration should also be given to the long standing current members of the AMC the majority of whom now have no external support to attend conferences of this type, when pricing is determined.  The majority are retired with limited resources.

Last modified: 30 May, 2008
About this site.