Current playbook index title and category plus an internally authored detailed-guide draft
Initiative-specific development wave
How this draft was developed
These sources support general principles for short feedback, accessibility, privacy, measurement and visible response; they are not an endorsement of the named Meeting Feedback Cards or approval of a local question, collection method, score, publication or meeting decision.
Primary references consulted
Engage emerging leaders(Rotary International) Used for: Rotary encourages clubs to ask members what they want and offers a short stop, start and continue exercise for a quick read on morale.
Criterion 4 - Measure if your digital service is meeting customer needs(Digital Transformation Agency, Australian Government) Used for: Feedback mechanisms should be easy and accessible, minimise burden, use precise questions and lead to monitoring and improvement rather than collection alone.
Australian Privacy Principles guidelines(Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) Used for: Collection, notice, use, security and de-identification should be considered even for apparently simple feedback, subject to the club confirming applicable obligations.
Principle 5 - We are genuine(Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Government of South Australia) Used for: People should be told what was heard and what was done so their contribution is visibly valued.
Candidate District material
No candidate local guide was used for this version. The current initiative identity and the attributed primary references remain separate.
Theme 2 source-assurance wave
What has been checked
5 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
5 attributed source claim(s) were mapped to their bounded use in this initiative.
Candidate District material remains separate and does not establish this result.
See each source's scope and limit
Engage Emerging Leaders Supports: Member-centred discovery, mentoring, feedback, emerging-leader support and club-health review principles during renewal. Does not establish: That a person is ready for office, should be selected, has consented to a role or that a proposed renewal pathway will work locally.
Criterion 4 - Measure if your digital service is meeting customer needs Supports: The 1 attributed Theme 2 claim attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: The club's local need, legal position, capability, cost, safety, accessibility, suitability, likely effectiveness, authority to act or approval of the initiative.
Hosting accessible and inclusive in-person meetings and events Supports: The 71 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: Accessibility or inclusion conformance, the needs or preferences of any person or community, cultural authority to act, the suitability of a format or venue, or local approval.
Australian Privacy Principles guidelines Supports: The 5 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: Whether the Privacy Act or another duty applies to this club, whether consent is informed and valid, whether collection or publication is authorised, or whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient in the actual circumstances.
Principle 5 - We are genuine Supports: The 3 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: The club's local need, legal position, capability, cost, safety, accessibility, suitability, likely effectiveness, authority to act or approval of the initiative.
What still needs a person to confirm
Confirm the member, prospective-member, past-member and community needs, preferences and consent that the local design assumes.
Confirm which privacy, safeguarding, incorporated-association, charity, work health and safety, food, liquor, copyright, licensing, screening and other duties apply to the club and the activity.
Test accessibility, cultural safety, belonging, language and alternative participation routes with affected people and recognise First Nations cultural authority rather than inferring suitability from the guide.
Confirm every local fact, starting point, cost, role, current service contact, measure, stopping condition and platform capability before the club decides to proceed.
Confirm the authority and current scope of each primary source, resolve login-gated or moved-page references and keep any candidate District material attributed and unapproved until its source decision is made.
The source-verification release gate remains closed.
Checks still on hold
The board or authorised meeting owner must approve the question, response standard, custodian, small-number rule, referral process and retention period before the pilot.
The card cannot replace a confidential complaint, safeguarding, grievance or support channel and must point members to those routes.
The Theme 2 candidate documents contain no literal current-title match or verified current-code crosswalk for E-165 and are not used as evidence.
No identifiable response, verbatim comment or small-group breakdown may be published without a separate lawful and informed basis.
Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.
What could this idea change?
It gives the club a clearer view of people's experiences before decisions are made, including feedback that informal conversations can miss.
It may suit: The people whose experience the club needs to understand, especially voices that are not often heard.
Could this work in our club?
Consider Meeting Feedback Cards when feedback is collected informally, repeatedly raised or rarely followed by a clear response.
A club wanting a repeatable two-minute pulse on meeting usefulness, inclusion or participation without running a full survey.
Testing one or two meeting changes over several meetings and comparing experience before deciding whether to keep them.
Members who benefit from paper, digital, spoken or assisted feedback options offered before they leave.
Before you start
One clear improvement question, a maximum of three card prompts and a decision owner who can respond before the next meeting.
Paper, accessible digital and assisted options that collect the same core information and do not require identifying details.
An honest statement about anonymity, collection, storage, access, aggregation, retention and the separate route for private or urgent matters.
A secure collection point, tally method, small-number suppression rule and action log for changes tested over time.
At the end: At the 90-day review, compare the recorded measures with the starting point, resolve the listed governance holds and tell participants whether Meeting Feedback Cards will change, continue or stop.
Made for this initiative
Tailored supporting documents
These working documents use the decisions, safeguards and evidence needs of this initiative. Complete them with the people affected and keep the agreed version with the club's project record.
01
Meeting Pulse Decision Brief
Define the single question and decision behind the card.
