A Failure of Leadership

The History of MVA Management – 29^th June to 22^nd October, 2025

Building a future or shattering dreams?

On Sunday, the 29^th June, 2025, the MVA conducted a Community Forum as a culmination of two years of research into what future the community wanted for Montville. Fifty-five participants, loosely grouped around eight tables of six to nine, spent 2 hours discussing preferred options under five headings/topics: Facility Usage (Public and Commercial); Community Events; Artisan Village Identity; Liveability; and Future Vision. A further hour was spent collating the views of the groups and establishing common priorities.  A summary of key community findings and priorities follows. (See The Future’s Forums for full report.)

Priorities From June Forum

“Key community findings and priorities: Participants emphasised the need for a community hub, enhanced village identity, cooperative enterprises, youth programs, improved public transport, more community events, and better facilities such as a community pub and arts centre focused on artisan crafts.”

“People expressed strong support and priority for:

● Arts centre which would promote hands on artists.

● Improved public transport including at weekends.

● Businesses more in tune with community needs.

● Co-operative enterprises.

● A community pub and bottle shop.

● Program of events at the Hall.

● Improved footpaths.”

“Areas of priority for Action are shown below:

● Arts centre. This is a major one. Needs a coordinator such as Skye Parker who has previously shown interest. Jim Cox and Pam Maegdefrau have suggestions re-funding.

● Improved public transport including at weekends. Should be taken up with Council. Eva Marie Seeto has contacts that could start the ball rolling.

● Businesses more in tune with community needs. Wayne Parcell, as President, could take this up with the Chamber of Commerce and write an article about it to create interest.

● Co-operative enterprises. An interesting concept - ask someone at the General Meeting to follow up.

● A community pub and bottle shop. (In hand)

●   Program of events at the Hall. Hall coordinator role in conjunction with Events group.

●   Improved footpaths. Role of Streetscape committee.”

(Forum Report, July 2025. Michael Bradley)

When these are compared to the findings of a similar Community Forum in 2019, many of the priorities identified were the same.

Top 10 Actions (From 2019 Forum)

	ACTION	PRIORITY
1	Reactivate Russell Family Park - Festival / event - weather proof the stage with cooperation of Council	13
2	Connect the walkways across connecting Montville - Flaxton - Mapleton	11
3	Activate Montville after 3pm	10
4	Need to utilise the Hall and the Green for more community gatherings e.g. seasonal long table	10
5	Small scale Independent-living accommodation in Montville	9
6	Art Gallery / Multipurpose building in Russell Family Park	9
7	Pursue the Artisan Village concept with high quality offering	9
8	Changing Council regulation regarding dwelling types on land	8
9	Welcome new residents - connect to the community - New Residents information Pack	8
10	Council masterplan - space in the Russell Family Park to locate an arts space/ educational facility	7

 (Montville Futures Workshop, 2019. Deb Davis. See The Future’s Forums for full report.)

The similarity between the findings of the two forums should have raised concerns about either the lack of follow-up action by the MVA or the lack of support from the relevant and responsible government agencies over the last 8 years. It is depressing that this pattern of inaction seems to be repeating itself and that 5 months on, the MVA has not pursued any of the major recommendations of this latest forum. This lack of support from the MVA leadership mocks the hours of research and community involvement in trying to take some control over Montville’s future.

Two groups have responded positively to the findings of the June forum; the Events Committee of the MVA and a group interested in the concept of a Community Bar. However, how they followed up on the two priorities that interested them was quite different.

As an existing structure within the MVA, the Events Committee called a meeting for Wednesday 10^thSeptember to consider how it could sponsor more community events as recommended by the forum and invited wider community input into planning for an extended, monthly calendar of events. The Committee presented a report of its proposal for monthly events in 2026 at the September General Meeting.

The group interested in pursuing the concept of a Community Bar sought the approval of the MVA at its July General Meeting to develop a proposal for how this might be enacted. A motion was passed inviting it to present a detailed proposal to the next (August) meeting for discussion.

When a large number of ‘new’ members began to assemble prior to the August meeting, ‘old’ members feared that the meeting was being stacked to accept this proposal and engaged in a ‘ring around’ in an attempt to balance the meeting. This lack of trust was exacerbated by rumours that the MVA President had colluded with the group in the preparation of its proposal.

As a result, the atmosphere of the meeting was not conducive to positive debate. In outlining their proposal, the group displayed a poor understanding of the role of the MVA in the community, its obligations as trustees of the hall to the community and the level of community use of the hall. This seemed to be considered inflammatory by many ‘old’ members and led to a degree of hostility in the manner that several unaddressed issues in the proposal were raised. The President, as Chair, struggled to keep the debate civil and reacted angrily when the possibility of a potential conflict of interest was raised. Despite this, the meeting asked the group to bring a more detailed and considered proposal to the next General Meeting in September.

A very large number of people, both MVA members and interested members of the Community attended the September General Meeting. Unfortunately, the President chose to pursue other interests and put in an apology. As a result, a number of procedural measures that might have helped the meeting were not employed. Instead of moving the presentation of the more detailed proposal to the top of the agenda so it might be more carefully and thoroughly discussed, the acting chair left this item, that most people had come for, until the very end of the night.

This meant that everyone had to sit through the routine business of a general meeting that was prolonged by a lack of direction from the chair who wanted to treat purposeful debate as a ‘conversation’. By the time the meeting eventually got around to the proposal, the ‘Social Groups’ spokesperson wisely just handed out a two-page summary, which was just as well as many of the issues raised in the August Meeting had not been addressed. What had become blatantly obvious was that this needed to be debated at a ‘Special General Meeting’ devoted specifically to this topic.

Adding to community unrest that they were not being given the full picture of what was being proposed were questions about the accuracy and reliability of the minutes of general meetings being presented for endorsement. When the September meeting refused to accept the minutes of the August meeting as a true and accurate record of that meeting community unease increased. In the absence of detailed information about the proposal, now called the Social Hub, rumours were rife. When the minutes of the September Meeting also failed to be accepted as a true and accurate record of that meeting, the acting secretary for both the August and September meetings advised members that the minutes presented were not the minutes she had kept and presented to the Executive. Trust in the Executive of the MVA reached an all-time low.

A number of members of the MVA were already expressing concern that the President was showing a lack of interest and commitment to his role. Action required of him was delayed for weeks. Some letters and emails were not answered for months, if at all. As Director of the Rangebow Festival, he seemed preoccupied with running this festival. He had chosen to attend the AGM of the Chamber of Commerce to seek election to its Board rather than chair the critical September MVA Meeting. He then chose to attend the AGM of Hinterland Tourism to seek election as its President rather than chair the October MVA Management Committee Meeting. Then he failed to attend the Lion’s Welcome to New Residence Dinner on the 21^st October to promote the role of the MVA in the community. Many believed that there was a clear case of serious multiple conflicts of interest playing out in how he was fulfilling his role as President of the MVA.

On top of all this, questions were being raised about how the Management Committee was prioritising its actions and failing to honour the directions of the body of the MVA. Therefore, it was not surprising that the option of a no-confidence motion against the President was canvassed prior to the MVA’s AGM.

The President’s decision to resign at the AGM was predictable. His tenure was so compromised that there was little other practical course of action open to him. His resignation should have given him the opportunity to highlight the positive results of his leadership and to share his goals moving forward. It gave him the opportunity to leave in dignity.

Unfortunately, he chose not to leave this way. Instead of resigning as part of the election of office-bearers of the MVA, he chose to do so at the end of the meeting in a vindictive, vitriolic attack on the membership of the Management Committee, the MVA and the community that supported them. He then left the meeting, so denying any right-of-reply. A this took place between the formal business of the AGM and the conduct of the following General Meeting, it constituted an unprecedented abuse of authority.

His tirade will have damaged the credibility of the MVA, but not as much as his actions and inactions over the last 5 months have done. However, it will have damaged his reputation in the wider community much more. Other community groups will note that, in the middle of a most challenging time to play a role in shaping Montville’s future, he virtually abandoned his leadership role. They will also note that he failed to accept and respond to questions and criticism and instead interpreted them as personal attacks. Rather than acknowledging mistakes, he lashed out at the people he was meant to serve, blaming them for his perceived failure.

With its community support, the MVA will re-build. Hopefully, it will take up the challenge it has been given by the Community Forum and begin arguing for changes that might contribute to a better future for everyone. Whether the ex-president’s political ambitions will survive his behaviour is mute.

Doug Patterson

01/01/2026