Proposed changes to constitution for regionalisation

nzLARPS
#61

You’re not worrying too much, and discussion of it is good.

We’re proabably just picturing things differently.

I picture the regional branches as being the real powerhouses of the society. The national body I see as just the glue that ties them together, that deals with membership and national matters, and handles any exception cases like larps running in regions that don’t have regional branches. The reason I see things this way, is that larp is a local activity, so I think it’s best administered by strong local bodies that have the authority they need to make local decisions quickly and get shit done. Putting everything through the national committee, which can’t physically meet with the local bodies to discuss it, will slow down the process of approving larp projects and create confusion in communication.

You suggest that the regional branches should manage their local larps, but not the projects. But larps are projects, they need funding, and someone has to approve that funding. I think the regional branches should be empowered to do so unhindered, so decisions can be made quickly.

I think it’d be good for the national committee to have visibility of what the regional committees are doing. Apart from being able to read the local meeting minutes, the national committee should also have visibility of the regional branch forums here on Diatribe, and be able to post suggestions on them. It may also be wise to arrange matters so that the national committee can see the financial forecasts and actuals from project events, when they are submitted to the local branches, to have oversight of them and offer input.

Should the national body should be able to veto approval of regional larp project, based on their financial forecast? I don’t think so, but it’s a discussion worth having. The reason I don’t think so is that the regional bodies have their own pool of funds to manage. It’s their job to ensure they don’t stuff up and lose their money on projects that make a loss. The rest of the society is protected from such losses by the localisation of funds. However, I can imagine circumstances where the national body may wish to direct local branches against certain behaviour, especially in terms of how funds are spent. For example the national body may wish to direct all branches not to spend money on entertainment at administrative events, like buying pizza for committee meetings or AGMs.

An alternative approach would be to include an amendment that specifies that the national committee can pass resolutions that must be respected by the regional branches. That way the national committee gets the authority over the regional branches that you want, without us having to specify all the possible purposes of it. The national committee could use this flexible power to veto projects approved by regional branches. I can’t personally foresee a circumstance that would require this, but it would give the national committee the power you want it to have, which would enable it to deal with difficult-to-foresee emergency situations.

Unfortunately, I can see circumstances where that power could be abused. The national committee could use such power to pass resolutions to force regional branches to hand over funds or equipment. I would see that as very counter-productive, as any such funds will have been earned by local members and they would be unlikely to respect decisions to take it away, unless their local representatives approve of it, in which case the national power wouldn’t be needed.

Therefore I’d be more inclined to totally empower the local branches to manage their local affairs and funds, which includes project approval, and not specify such override powers for the national committee. The regional members will vote out the regional committees if they stuff it up.

In terms of local projects running events in other “jurisdictions”, it’s a messy proposition no matter what the structure is. I think such events should be handled case-by-case on their merits, with oversight from whatever body the project is operating under. In your example, the Auckland project running an event in Wellington may decide to gift some of the profits to the Wellington society. That gift would be written into the event’s financial forecast, and therefore require approval from the Auckland branch committee. That’s one way that such concerns could be met.

#62

With decentralisation, I see the national body only dealing with things that are issues nationally, i.e. the website, forums, national marketing, end of year financials, and membership funds. All other tasks would be completed by the regionally branches.

#63

I see what Dave means here, and I agree that projects should belong to “the society” and individual events be managed by the regional offices. For example, St. Wolfgang’s Vampire Hunters is a project of nzLARPS. That was voted on and accepted at a committee meeting in like, June 2007. Since then, every event we’ve run, we’ve submitted a financial forecast to the committee for approval, which they’ve had to approve. The way I imagined it happening is to prevent a campaign being tied to a single region (should the organisers want to run events in more than one locale, ala Knightshade), the region that funds the event manages the individual event, and gets the proceeds (or loss)

So the way I would see is that St. Wolfgang’s belongs to “the society” but Event A is run in Auckland so is administered through the Auckland committee, Event B is run in Wellington so I run it through the Wellington committee. For Event A, all the gear and funds come from the Auckland pool and anything generated goes into the Auckland, and for Event B, all the gear and funds comes from the Wellington pool and goes back into the Wellington pool.

I have no problem with the idea of each region being able to approve project/affiliation applications, each region will still have to approve the budget based on their capabilities - they can say no to a budget based on the fact that I’ve just asked for three times as much outlay as they have, or they can go “Oh that’s really awesome, we really want to run this project, let’s make an arrangement to borrow money from another branch/whatever to run it.”

I hope that makes sense - I guess the short version is that I see regions owning and managing individual events rather than “projects”

#64

That wording makes the idea clearer for me.

All projects (and presumably affiliates too) would belong to the national society, but events for those projects would belong to the regional branch. Except perhaps some events that are running somewhere that has no local branch - those might run under the society.

If that approach were taken, we may need to define “events” (or some term like that) in the constitution to make it clear. Projects and affiliates are already defined.

The national committee would presumably still have to approve a project before any events for that project could be approved by a regional branch. This might still slow things down too much, unless the national committee was very efficient.

#65

Thank you Anna for finding my words for me - it was the project/affiliate side of things I had in mind, as opposed to individual event budgets and so forth.

Projects being accepted to NZLARPS still need to be voted on by the committee, correct? As far as I’m aware, new projects/affiliates submissions are usually done at the next committee meeting. I would like to think that even a national committee will have such regular meetings where this can happen, so the waiting time for approval shouldn’t be any different.

In all other respects though - running of events and local advertising, etc, as I said should definitely be down to the regional committees. I’m still of a mind that anywhere not currently supported by it’s own committee should be able to associate with the nearest committee - Hamilton has done this successfully with Auckland, and both areas have got gear out of the arrangement as a result - but I can see there being situations where this might not be so practical. Christchurch is a long way from Wellington, for example, and getting gear to/from would be far too much hassle.

#66

The difference is that two separate bodies would have to approve it, rather than one. For example, if Wellington approves its own projects then it could approve the project and the project’s first event, all in one sitting. Whereas if the project requires approval by the national committee, it would have to approve the project in one meeting, and then the local branch approve the event in a separate meeting. That could be worked around by alllowing the national committee to approve new projects online.

I don’t think the national committee will have such regular physical meetings, I suspect they’ll do a lot of business online.

We could just leave it up to new areas whether they wish to fall under a regional branch or directly under the national society, in terms of who approves their event budgets, lends them the money, and generally helps them get started.

#67

I would have no problem with regional branches having the power to accept projects and affiliates. If the National committee has some issue, they can intercede, but really, there’s never been a problem with the accepting of a project in theory, problems usually crop up when we get to the money part of things.

#68

I think this would lead to alot of paperwork and also result in issues with props.

Example: ST WG runs an event in wellington under the wellington branch. The budget comes from the wellington treasury and the event is ok’d. ST WG purchases a portable prop chapel for the event. This now becomes part of Wellingtons prop storage and is recorded as being part of their inventory.

ST WG wishes to run a game in Auckland - it is ok’d but they want to use that chapel they had last time. They make the arrangement to move it up to Auckland where it then stays.

It becomes damaged either over time or fire or another accident of your choosing. Auckland claims on insurance for the item and the insurance company asks for proof of purchase. Purchase proof is for the wellington branch.

Bureaucracy ensues.

Now - if every thing came from the national treasury then it wouldn’t matter where the props were stored, who bought them etc. It would all fall under the national banner and could still be moved around freely but with less risk of serious piles of paperwork.

#69

I don’t think that’s likely to happen. Game organisers will need to understand that whatever money they buy the props with, that is who the prop will belong to. In the situation you outlined, St. Wolfgang’s, recognising that they will need the chapel prop at a future Auckland event, would not buy the chapel prop with Wellington funds. They would either buy it with personal funds and then purchase it from themselves with Auckland funding from the next Auckland event, or they have a chat to the Wellington committee about how they can arrange to buy it and take it with them.

All it takes is being sensible and having a bit of foresight, and understanding the basic principle that: Wellington money buys Wellington gear, Auckland money buys Auckland gear etc.

And there’s always room for being flexible, that’s what the committees are there to manage.

#70

That works for me too. So branches can accept projects and affiliates on behalf of the society as a whole. The national committee can un-accept them, in the unlikely event that’s required.

That way the business of accepting a project and a budget for the first event of that project can all happen in a single regional committee meeting. The project belongs to the whole society, but the event is funded by the branch and its proceeds go to the branch.

#71

We work it out as we go along :slight_smile: But really, I’d expect the key question to be "who is running it’ and “who is fronting the money”.

#72

Yup, we seem to have hammered it out quite well :slight_smile:

#73

Sounds like a plan. Can we get it in definitive writing somewhere? Somewhere official…

(Just want to make everyone knows whats happening to who…)

#74

Is the SGM tonight? I maybe going blind or incompetant, but I can’t see any announcement details like time and venue.
Should we talk about the gear shed/trailer/truck also, if there is time at the end.

#75

No, the date for the sgm has been pushed to early december.