[quote]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.[/quote]
I would argue that it’s still ambiguous. The votes- ie the voice- of those members who elected to participate via e-mail is still present at the meeting.
I agree with Ellen. The quruom rules are for ensuring adequate number of members participate not how many warm buddies are in the room. Their will was present for the AGM.
I agree with Ellen & Anna’s explanation. The main purpose of requiring a quorum is to ensure that a large enough proportion of the membership have their say.
About 75% of the membership were represented by their votes, so as I see it a quorum was “present” as per the wording of the constitution. It’s not only a reasonable interpretation, it’s the most democratic interpretation.
If “present” means physically present, then technically the people in Auckland didn’t count towards it either. The physical meeting was in Wellington. But you interpreted “present” to include telepresence, right? How convenient. 
My amendment was to remove the ambiguity in the constitution regarding what constitutes “present”, so that the most sensible definition of quorum could be used going forward without leaving any room for interpretation.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]I agree with Ellen & Anna’s explanation. The main purpose of requiring a quorum is to ensure that a large enough proportion of the membership have their say.
About 75% of the membership were represented by their votes, so as I see it a quorum was “present” as per the wording of the constitution. It’s not only a reasonable interpretation, it’s the most democratic interpretation.
If “present” means physically present, then technically the people in Auckland didn’t count towards it either. The physical meeting was in Wellington. But you interpreted “present” to include telepresence, right? How convenient.
My amendment was to remove the ambiguity in the constitution regarding what constitutes “present”, so that the most sensible definition of quorum could be used going forward without leaving any room for interpretation.[/quote]
Entirely agreed.
While I think there could be grounds to challenge the interpretation of the meaning of the word “present”, I do not believe that such a challenge would result in any changes to the decisions undertaken at the AGM.
This is because an overwhelming majority of the Society participated in the decisions (~75%), and the outcomes therefore reflect the will of the Membership in general.
So, Ryan’s suggestion is a pragmatic one aimed at allowing us all to get on with executing the purposes of the Society (i.e. larping) without getting unnecessarily bogged down in pointless constitutional minutiae.
However, if 20% of the Membership feel strongly about this approach, they can call for an SGM. This is a large minority, and I would be happy to attend an SGM if that many members feel it is the right thing to do.
I just made a call to the Companies Office in regards to this issue without mentioning any names (FYI they are a very friendly bunch). They explained that because of the ambiguity in the constitution it is ruled as an internal issue by the Registrar. This means that the National Committee can rule that electronic votes do count towards quorum at the National AGM as an interpretation of the rule and if no one opposes to this interpretation then everything is fine.
Also I wanted to mention that the fact that someone is posting in this thread means they have the society best interests at heart as they are taking part in the discussion. The concern is only that something negative happens to the society which no one wants. The ‘email voting quorum’ motions passed during this AGM are great because they directly remove ambiguity within the Constitution which creates situations like this.
Thanks Muppet. That is awesome. Glad we can move on. 
I wasn’t wanting to cause problems and wasn’t going to push the issue, but wanted to raise the legality of it. Good to have a definite answer over that.
It is good that the motions to resolve some of these sorts of issues have passes. So the Auckland Regional SGM should be a lot easier now.
It’s good to have that sorted. Thank you, nice people at the society’s office! (and Muppet, for ringing them)
Welcome, new committee!
Thanks Muppet for checking, and thanks to those who raised the concern. We do want to follow the rules. The office’s response is what I expected, but it’s nice to be sure.
Looking forward to another big year for kiwi larp, and the society.