Proposed changes to constitution for regionalisation

nzLARPS
#1

I’d like to put forward the following text as a proposal for how to amend NZLARPS’ constitution to allow for regionalisation, based on the previous proposal that was discussed at the AGM but not voted on, and on the National body discussion thread.

I know that the committee was intending to put together a proposal, but as the date for the SGM is approaching rapidly I thought it may speed things up to make a text available before the committee meeting tomorrow evening. Proposed amendments can come from society members as well as from the committee.

The text below is to form a central committee and a branch for each region. A new Auckland branch would presumably be formed and the assets and some of the funds of the society passed to that branch, as well as a number of projects, which could all be done by a meeting of the new committee. There is no restriction to stop members serving on both a regional committee and the national committee.

If this proposal is passed then the present Committee would immediately become the national committee (because it already has been elected as such), except for the roles of Equipment Officer and General Officer which would be dropped as they’re no longer in the constitution. The national committee could then meet immediately and propose to create a regional branch for Auckland. The quorum of Auckland residents present at the SGM could then propose to hold the Auckland AGM immediately without the usual notice, and elect the regional Auckland committee. The same people who were elected for the society’s committee as a whole may wish to stand again for the Auckland regional committee, but of course there may also be challengers.

At the end I have proposed three amendments that are not related to regionalisation. The use of the male pronoun throughout is gender-biased and should be fixed, as I think Daphne raised at the AGM. The “Life Member” class of member is non-egalitarian and the society should not be burdened with an accumulation of non-paying members. We don’t have any Life Members at present, so now is a good time to ditch it. And the student rate shouldn’t be fixed at half, the committee should be able to fix it at whatever amount they want.

Here’s the proposal:

Proposed Changes to the NZLARPS Constitution to be voted on at the AGM on November 25th 2009

REGIONAL BRANCHES

  1. That a Section “Structure of Regional Committees” be created that reads as follows:

“A Regional committee shall consist of between five (5) and seven (7) members, comprising of a Regional Director, Regional Treasurer, Regional Secretary, Regional Equipment Officer, Regional Marketing Officer, and up to two (2) two other general Committee members if the Regional Branch choses to include them.

Regional Director
Responsible for overall running of committee and society for the region. Promote the vision of the society, chair committee meetings, work for consensus in the committee. Attend meetings as regional representative of the society. Co-ordinate with other regional directors and Society President to ensure cooperation across the country in advancing the aims and visions of the society.

Regional Secretary
Keep all club correspondence in an organised fashion. Send letters as required. Send reminders of meetings to committee members. Take minutes at meetings and distribute to committee members. Communicate decisions made by committee to members.

Regional Treasurer
Responsible for society finances. Keep general ledger to track society expenditure and income. Pay all society accounts. Bank money received. Advise on availability of funds for projects and committee initiatives. Distribute budgets to project owners and receive repayments. Pass accounts to society accountant to be registered with the government. Present financial report of current position at committee meetings.

Regional Equipment Officer
Responsible for society-owned equipment. Organise for equipment to be stored, cleaned, repaired, and made available for project events. Keep records of where equipment is kept. Advise committee and project owners on what equipment is likely to be useful to current and future projects. Facilitate equipment workshops with project owners. Suggest equipment purchases. Report on state of equipment to committee.

Regional Marketing Officer
Identify online and offline communities. Devise strategies by which to promote larp games and events to these communities, with a view to recruiting new players into larping and potentially into joining nzLARPS. Coordinate marketing campaigns

Regional General Officer x 2
Can take up responsibilities as required.”

  1. That an amendment to the section “Appointment and Removal of Committee” be made whereby an additional clause is added which reads “b) Each regional branch shall at every Regional Annual General Meeting elect a Regional Committee consisting of a Regional Director, Regional Treasurer, Regional Secretary, Regional Equipment Officer, Regional Marketing Officer who shall hold office until resignation expulsion suspension or removal from office or election of successors to office. They may, at their discretion, also appoint up to 2 General Officers.” and that all following clauses be re numbered accordingly.

  2. That the section entitled “Formation of Regional Branches” be amended from “The Regional Branch will hold Annual General Meetings as set out in Sections 12, 13 and 14 and elect a Regional Committee as detailed in Section “Appointment and Removal of Committee”” to “The Regional Branch will hold Regional Annual General Meetings as set out in Sections 12, 13 and 14 and elect a Regional Committee as detailed in Section “Appointment and Removal of Committee””. The change is to specify the name of the regional branch’s AGMs as Regional Annual General Meetings to clarify the distinction between regional AGMs with AGMs of the whole society.

  3. That the following clause be added to section 12: “(f) A member shall be eligible to vote in a regional AGM if that members primary place of Residence – that listed on the membership roll – lies within the area covered by that regional committee”

  4. That section 24 be amended from “A Project shall be an event or series of events wholly organised and owned by the Society.” to “A Project shall be an event, a series of events, or other collection of work such as a publication wholly organised and owned by the Society. A Project shall either be a Project of the Society as a whole or a Project of a Regional Branch, and shall report to the Committee of either the Society or the Regional Branch.”

NATIONAL COMMITTEE

  1. That the description of the role of president in section 18 be amended from “Responsible for overall running of society. Promote the vision of the society, chair committee meetings, work for consensus in the committee, cast deciding vote in case of ties. Attend meetings as society representative.” to “The President of the society shall be responsible for overall running of society, promoting the vision of the society, chair committee meetings, work for consensus in the committee, cast deciding vote in case of ties, attend meetings as society representative, liaising with all regional directors to coordinate the workings of the Society across New Zealand, managing matters related to the core function of the society, the first point of contact for those wishing to contact the society.”

  2. That section 18 be amended to remove the role of Equipment Officer and General Officer, and that a new role of “Information Technology Officer” be created with this description: “Coordinate the creation and maintenance of information technology resources for the society such as the society’s website, online forum, communications technology for meetings, and the enablement of projects via information technology.” That Section 19 (a) be amended with the new list of committee positions.

OTHER AMENDMENTS

  1. That all pronouns that refer to committee members or society members as male be amended to be gender neutral, so that they will now read “they” and “their” instead of “he” and “his”.

  2. That section 4 © and section 4 (e) be removed, so that Life Members cannot be created, and that section 4 (a) be amended to “The Society shall consist of two classes of members. They are individual members and committee members.”

  3. That section 6 be amended from “Students and beneficiaries shall be entitled to pay one half the annual fee on production of proof of their status at the time of paying the fee.” to “Students and beneficiaries shall be entitled to pay a reduced annual fee the amount of which shall be decided from time to time by resolution in a committee meeting, on production of proof of their status at the time of paying the fee.”

Special General Meeting - Wednesday March 3rd
[Public consultation]: Regional structure
#2

I haven’t added any amendments to clarify that membership fees would go to the society, whereas profits from regional projects would go to the regional branch. I think this is sufficiently implied in the amended constitution, but we could make it explicit.

Similiarly, I haven’t mentioned that the society could redistribute funds from membership fees to the accounts of regional branches at its discretion, or that the society or branches could lend each other funds. But again, I think this is implicit and that each fund redistribution and loan could be dealt with by society and branch committee resolutions.

#3

Over all looks good.

A few comments and questions.

Do we need to specify the timing of the Regional AGMs in relation to the National AGM? ie. Should a regional AGM (to elect officers and so on) have to take place BEFORE the National AGM? Or perhaps it should take place shortly afterwards? That would give the outgoing regional committee the opportunity to present reports, finances etc at the National AGM, and then hold regional elections shortly afterwards? I suspect that some specification may be wise to avoid confusion, and AGMs getting too out of sync…

I disagree that a Lifetime Membership needs to be removed. An organisation I am with has that clause in the constitution, and we haven’t used it yet. But it’s nice to know it’s there. If there is concern about it being invoked inappropriately by the committee then perhaps the awarding of a Lifetime membership should be voted on by the general membership?

For the change of pronouns section, a gender neutral possibility is “they” or “their”. Which in my mind is a bit less clunky than “he or she”. But not a big issue.

#4

I think this could be handled by tradition rather than written into the constitution. We can figure out whether having regional AGMs before or after the national AGM works better by trial and error. If we make hard rules that will make scheduling each AGM a little more difficult.

For me, it’s an irritant to know it’s there. Recognising people who have made outstanding contributions is good, but financial reward in the form of free membership isn’t the right way to do it. The purpose of the society is to communitise larp assets and skills for the general benefit of NZ larpers. No one should get a free ride, it is a financial freeloading “perk” of no value to the society.

Absolutely, whatever reads best.

EDIT: I’ve edited my proposal to use your wording.

#5

I absolutely disagree. It is there to reward those who dedicate themselves to the organisation and as a sign of thanks to be offered to large fundraisers who show an interest. Should any famous people in the future decide to donate $10,000 then a life time membership in thanks is the very least we can do.

#6

That’s a very unlikely scenario.

A more likely scenario is that someone prominent within the society will be offered life membership because the committee or membership feels that the person has rendered services of particular note. And when I say it’s more likely that sort of recipient would be chosen, I mean that it’s already happened.

But anyone dedicated to larp shouldn’t need a free ride from the society. They should be happy to pay like everyone else to support an organisation that does so much for their hobby.

#7

So what your really saying is that we should not reward people for helping the society above and beyond the call of duty.

#8

Not through financial perks, no.

#9

Then recommend a replacement.

#10

A yearly award voted at the AGM that recognises a person who has made contributions of particular note to NZ larp in the last year?

Or it could be awarded by the national committee, if one more round of voting at the AGM would be too onerous.

Something like that wouldn’t need to be in the constitution.

#11

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]A yearly award voted at the AGM that recognises a person who has made contributions of particular note to NZ larp in the last year?

Or it could be awarded by the national committee, if one more round of voting at the AGM would be too onerous.

Something like that wouldn’t need to be in the constitution.[/quote]

annual awards?..hold that thought… plots

#12

Ooh ooh! We could call them ‘The Larpies’!!

#13

Proposed changes to constitution for regionalisation

This was discussed at the committee meeting last night. We will, as at the AGM, put forward two different options for how to go about this, first in laymen’s speak, then in the proper constitutionalese. Cameron Burns is working on getting these written up.

The SGM has been pushed out to early December.

#14

Hum… there was a larp awards in the US called that. They tried to Hollywood it (like, they ran it in Hollywood and invited celebs) and it all seemed a bit odd from what I could make out online. Was the brainchild of the NERO guy.

Personally I think that Chimera already does a good job of awards for roleplay, costume, game writing, etc, and it’s already annual.

But the society could make an annual award to a valuable member of the community, based on overall input not just larp skills.

#15

Are there people actually pushing for the other option, where Auckland is the national committee? If not, it’s hard to see what the point of proposing it is. We’ve had a long time to discuss this on Diatribe, and there hasn’t been a strong presentation of that position at all. We should try to get the positions out in the open and discussed before the meeting, otherwise we’ll be in danger of another drawn-out meeting where the ground hasn’t been sufficiently prepared by discussion in advance.

Hopefully Cameron can find some use in what I’ve written up. I left out one or two items from the previous proposal, as they seem uneccessary.

If his proposal doesn’t cover the same ground as mine, I’ll make mine a separate proposal after editing it to remove what he covers. It’s not solely the committee’s role to propose changes, they can come from the membership.

#16

The committee felt that variant where Auckland was the central committee had merit, and was supported by Wellington at the previous SGM. In addition to that, a very small part of the society participated in the national body debate on Diatribe therefore we can’t assume that because those half dozen people were in favour of having a seperate central committee, that everyone else is too. I understand a lot of people didn’t follow that discussion because it got too complicated.

If when we post the layman’s terms version of the proposed options there is a massive and obvious outcry against the variant where Auckland is the central committee, we will take it into account. But at this stage, I don’t think there is any such favour of any one position over the other.

#17

“Having merit” is a very low threshold for proposing it to an SGM. Do you mean that some on the committee thought it was preferable?

The reason for Wellington’s vote was discussed in that thread:

[quote=“Joker”]At the AGM, all of us Wellingtonians in the room (11 I think?) voted to have Auckland as the central committee (ie. not to decentralise NZLARPs) , at least for the moment.

This is all a bit new, and I don’t think anyone is quite sure of the work or responsibilities involved with decentralising NZLARPs.

I think we agreed that it would need to occur in the future, but those of us there seemed to be satisfied to let the status quo stay. Particularly since Auckland area (and I include Hamilton here) has the most experience with NZLARPs as an organisation.

I just mention this as a point of interest. But not to bind anyone to that at this point. We may wind up being able to work out the details in this discussion.[/quote]

If Norman’s comments reflect the Wellington position, then:

  1. They thought decentralisation needs to happen sometime
  2. They thought Auckland had more experience, but if so they can just vote Aucklanders onto the national committee
  3. Now that we’re over the hurdle of creating the Wellington branch and have time to reflect, it’s worth doing “right”

If opinion is really so balanced, it’s curious that no one is publically recommending the Auckland option or giving their reasons why it’s their preferred option. It sounds like some folks on the committee feel it’s a better option - it would be nice to hear their reasons. At the AGM people commented that having more public discussion prior to the meeting would have been preferable. On the forum I’ve seen a handful of people support a national committee, and 0 people object strongly to it or suggest that having Auckland be the main committee is preferable. That’s what led me to believe it’s a dead duck.

#18

I don’t think we have anything to lose by presenting both options, we have more to lose by excluding an option.

It’s not for Diatribe to decide what our preferences are. That’s for the SGM. The most responsible thing we can do is present as clear a set of options as we can and let the voting society make a choice.

#19

Unless someone had publically said it’s their preferred option, whether on the forum or at the committee meeting, it’s difficult to see where the mandate comes from to put it in a motion. We are not required to present devil’s advocate options.

#20

Whoa Ryan… :slight_smile: Anyone can put possibilities forward. Including committee members. So long as there are alternatives that have been discussed, then what’s the problem?

Personally I think that there has been some discussion, led by Ryan, that appears to have resolved a number of issues to do with de-centralising NZLARPS.

Ryan’s amendments seem to allow for flexible voting which allow us to choose who is on the National Committee. So we can CHOOSE to vote in Aucklanders if we wish. It would have the same effect. And later on the national committee can spread to other centers as desired.

I still stand by my quoted statements above on this topic.

But it does seem to me that we have probably resolved enough practical issues that it’s quite POSSIBLE to decentralise NZLARPs.

Naturally, I could be wrong… :open_mouth: