National agm

nzLARPS
#1

Due to a dispute at the AGM tonight about Quorum, the National AGM results are being put aside and will happen next week. Venue will have TBA since I don’t know if we can use the same Venue. But Tuesday 29 October 7pm. The constitution says that Quorum will be whoever turns up next week

Thank you for all those that turned out 14 people in Wellington (about Half the Membership) and 6 in Auckland. And for the 37 of you that voted Electronically. Unfortunately all of your votes are now void, can you please vote again and turn up if you can. We want you all to have your say. If you didn’t vote last time, please take this chance. Email address stays the same.

All Motions that were voted on are no longer in effect, which means that the 2 month rule is still in effect. Anyone who has not been a member for 2 months straight cannot stand for the National or Auckland committees (Wellington was clear of this at the time of voting).

Can you please discuss any motions and so on in the diatribe threads before the meeting so we can speed things up.

#2

Just a clarification for the public of the dispute:

Under the current constitution the meeting could not stand. Due to communication problems with conferencing between the city centres (Skype being blocked and mic’s not working and ending up with only phone communication) both groups were under the understanding that enough people were present at the other location to achieve quorum with the total number present at both locations. This was until the end of the meeting, when comments about the numbers present revealed the issue. When the issue was discovered it was discussed and consulting the constitution the current course of action agreed on.

This issue exactly highlight’s the reason for the motion to allow emailed votes of count towards quorum.

#3

As mentioned a few times the “2 month rule” is on nominations. If a membership should lapse between the nomination and the election that’s fine. But they must still be a member to be on the committee.

So (not that I think it will be relevant) if someone’s membership expires between now and the meeting their still ok.

#4

Ah. Just a question, then: if quorum consists only of those that are at the next meeting, does that mean that there is no minimum required number of attendees? I ask because I have somewhere else to be next Tuesday, and would prefer to cancel that only if it means the difference between this process going ahead or being stalled for an indeterminate period of time.

#5

Correct. Whoever shows up is quorum. But you can vote electronicly if your reason for absence is deemed valid by the chair or if there are “other mitigating circumstances” (such as “Illness, Work, [or] Family Obligations”).

#6

This isn’t making much sense. It was advertised prior the the AGM that electronic voting would could towards quorum:

As a result I specifically advised people they didn’t need to attend the Auckland meeting to help with quorum:

Nobody objected to those statements. Was the person who objected to the nature of the quorum someone who didn’t have access to Diatribe?

Given that the chair of the meeting advised prior to the meeting that email votes would help towards quorum, and that there were no objections, and that some people may not have attended because they were advised on the forum that it wasn’t required for quorum, I believe the votes from this meeting should stand.

My motion was to formalise a practice that was already in place.

Holding the meeting again would be farcical. Can we just move the hell on?

#7

I also think that the meeting last night should count and that we should all just move on, the constitution seems to be so subjective but then again I also think that the whole 2 month rule before you can be nominated for a position should never have been made a big issue of either, as it never has before and is an extra layer of red tape that is not needed.

If the membership agrees to just move on, can we? Or is there something specific in the constitution that would make it illegal?

#8

I think the national committee could vote on whether to count the votes, and I will raise that motion on the committee forum now.

If anyone objected with the committee’s interpretation of the constitution & the meeting process, the objector could try to call an SGM to have the membership vote on it. If they didn’t get what they want and objected strongly enough, they could take it up with the Societies Office.

There’s no need for us to continue pointlessly hamstringing ourselves over this.

#9

I’m keen on Ryan’s solution.

Also, if the second meeting has quorum no matter the number of attendees, can we just leave the votes as is so that we don’t have to go through that process again?

#10

I also agree with Ryan, Nikki and Nick. That e-mail votes would count towards quorum was well advertised, and many members voted electronically on the understanding that this would count towards quorum.

I believe the votes should stand, and that the newly-elected National Committee should be allowed to get on with their new roles (including registering those constitutional changes which were approved last night).

#11

I’d be keen for the votes to stand. I don’t imagine people will vote any differently the next time around.

#12

[quote=“AhGoodTheSea”]I also agree with Ryan, Nikki and Nick. That e-mail votes would count towards quorum was well advertised, and many members voted electronically on the understanding that this would count towards quorum.

I believe the votes should stand, and that the newly-elected National Committee should be allowed to get on with their new roles (including registering those constitutional changes which were approved last night).[/quote]

Cool, have you voted on the motion on this in the national committee forum?

#13

I have now.

#14

I am glad to see that reason seems to be winning this one. I hope that the AGM gets verified soon and we can continue.

#15

The outgoing national committee has voted unanimously to declare the results of the national AGM official.

Official results from the AGM will be posted soon with an explanation.

#16

Minutes of the National AGM will be posted as soon as I get confirmation of something from Idiot.

#17

I agree that letting the AGMs results stand is the most convenient option and I don’t think that the results would change if we had to redo it.

However, I do have some concern over doing so. It was raised 2 months ago that we couldn’t legally ignore the constitution for our own convenience just because it was common previous practice (then in regards to the 2 month membership to be nominated rule). I don’t see why it has changed now.

The misinformation posted on Diatribe about electronic votes counting as quorum is unfortunate, but it doesn’t change our constitution. We wouldn’t have had the motion put forward if it was already allowed by the constitution.

So we are left in the situation that we didn’t meet quorum and we are currently looking at filing legal documents that we have changed our constitution without legally fulfilling the requirements to have done so. I don’t know the legal ramifications of such an action. This is the part of running the club that directly interacts with NZ laws.

What are the legal consequences of doing this? Is it fraud? Who gets in trouble if it backfires? Are those responsible (I assume the outgoing national committee but I am not sure) willing to take that risks?

I don’t want to be ‘that guy’, and I would prefer that we were able to accept the results, but I don’t want to put the society and, on a personal level, my friends at legal risk for our own convenience. If someone with more legal knowledge on the matter can shed some light that would be good. I just think we should consider it from a legal stand point before we rush into this.

#18

The constitution is ambiguous regarding whether electronic votes count toward quorum. Therefore it’s reasonable for the national committee to take an interpretation that they consider in the best interests of the society.

The constitution is totally clear about the 2 month rule, there is no room for interpretation. That’s why it was treated differently.

The constitution states that if there is disagreement over the interpretation of the constitiuion, members can call an SGM to decide which interpretation they prefer. 20% of the members would need to call for an SGM.

Unless overruled via SGM, the interpretation that the national committee has decided on will stand.

#19

The reason we require quorum is so a minimum number of society members are involved in the decision making process.

In this case, 37 people chose to be involved in that process via e-mail.

57 people made their will known by voting on the motions and in the national committee election, which is well over quorum.

For this reason I believe that our interpretation of the constitution was fair and reasonable.

#20

I believe it fair, reasonable, just, to the intent of the constitution…
I’m fine with the results standing BUT…
Ryan hate to bust your bubble, it could be challenged on (and I’m not)…

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING QUORUM
"No business shall be transacted unless a quorum is present."

Not really ambiguous. If a member isn’t present at the site/sites of the AGM, they don’t count towards quorum currently.
As I said not challenging it…and if motion 4 is going though hopefully no-one will again.