Er, I hope I’m reading that wrong Ryan. I don’t think the solution here is ‘give Anna more work’. (I may be reading it wrong. It IS early! 
)
I don’t mean it’s a solution, I mean it’s what may happen by default if nothing else changes.
I usually dont like posting in discussions like this, because what is written can be misread and the tone is lost and miscommunication can happen. Also I dont like conflict.
However, I really think that the main point I tried to give in my earlier post was missed. Adam is not performing the role of the treasurer. As a game organiser, the only communication and help we have recieved is from Anna. She does Adam’s job already.
Anna is the one who advises me who has pre-paid for the game. Anna reimburses me for expenses. Adam is unable to perform these functions becuase he does not believe in internet banking. This may not be such a big problem, except that he can not get access to the bank in other means very easilly.
If Anna rightly refused to perform these roles, many projects would be up the river without a paddle.
I too would prefer Adam steps down.
Just thought I would put in my 2c.
If the committee needs help with the interim role of treasurer I put my hand up to assist. I work in town and am all of five minutes from all of the major (and minor) banks and have no fear of internet banking. I live a few doors down from Anna and around the corner practically from Rowena so would be able to make committee meetings.
If I can be of help please let me know 
since the discussion here seems to have stopped is there anyway fo hiding this forum with it being made avalible to members of the society at their request? again, PR stuff
A good point, but this is far from the most offensive thread about. Other threads have seen people insult non-larpers (I think ‘mundanes’ was one of the more palatable words), get far more intense and… argumentative than they have here - and about more trivial matters, and in one instance there’s another post of committee meeting minutes discussing “free penises with membership”…
Did you miss the entire discussion above about the evils of secrecy?
The society should transact its business in public. And that means not just to its membership, but to the wider public. At the very least, it lets them judge whether we are the sort of society they want to join - a judgement they cannot make if things are kept secret.
Quite apart from those principles, I see nothing to be ashamed of on the merits. A committee member failed to live up to the expectations of the membership. Those expectations were clearly communicated, the rest of the committee responded, and the problem was solved. From a PR perspective, this shows that the membership of the society take an active interest in its governance, and that the committee is responsive and accountable to members. I do not understand why anyone would wish to suppress such information.
I see no reason why this thread needs to be hidden. Nothing here is a secret. Because someone’s feelings might get hurt? If they were going to br, they have already.