Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Dave Hall <dave.hall@skwashd.com> wrote:
Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome. The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the motion was not carried.
One of the problems with that idea is that AGM attendence is as low as 16 which isn't a statistically significant sampling of LUV members.
As some one who voted in favour of the motion, or would have if the proxy voting system was clear; can I please ask the committee to sort the rules situation consistent with proxy voting. It is apparent that attendance at monthly meetings(and thus AGM's) can never be more than a small percentage of say luv-man, luv-talk; luv-announce for reasons of remoteness or in my case existing commitments. 'A' set of steps would seem to be : 1/ Preliminary definition of the set of people who can be considered legitimate members of LUV, under the existing rules. 2/ Drawing up a new set of rules consistent with the new Victorian legislation; which set of rules would include - a new definition enlarging the set of people who are to be considered members of LUV; to include anyone who has ever been on a LUV list and hasn't unsubscribed ! (my suggestion) - a new system which maintains a current list of members of LUV - a new proxy system which is as simple and broad as possible; and has been fully debugged. 3/ Ratification of the new set of rules by 1/ above and publication to every one included in 2/ above. 4/ Such publication to make it clear that anyone who doesn't opt-out is now a member of LUV just a suggestion , regards Rohan McLeod