Hiya Les, et. al, On 01/09/13 23:52, Les Kitchen wrote:
[In response to Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org>:]
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says: ...
Should I have added smileys to your post?
I thought I'd added some, apologies if I didn't!
Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope that we work through this all with reasonableness and good will.
Indeed. My major concern is that we've said that we cannot do this vote electronically (and so permit those who cannot attend to vote directly rather than via a proxy) because the LUV rules don't allow it, but then the same rules have a process for being a member that I don't think anyone was really aware of (or have followed, certainly I hadn't) and so the number of people who can vote is probably very low (tending to 0). I'm going to send in my membership form today and hopefully the committee can approve me before the AGM tomorrow so I can vote on this issue.
I think that for membership we have a pretty well established and accepted mechanism.
As an ex committee member (and former treasurer) myself I would have agreed with you right up until I re-read the rules on the weekend and saw what's required to be a member. I presumably missed that before (very much my bad), or they're based on the latest set of model rules from the State Govt that came out this year.
For things like contentious resolutions and proxy voting, we don't have so much experience -- so in the absence of that experience, the best we can do is follow the laid-out rules as seem reasonable.
I'm more than happy to follow the rules, it's just that I'm concerned that the rules don't seem to match anyones understanding of what is required to be a member of LUV (and so to be eligible to vote). Sorry to be a pain on this matter, but I do think it's something we need to figure out how to deal with for this AGM. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC