Proposed changes to the nzlarps constitution

In terms of the regional branches, I’ll be inclined to vote for the second option where every branch has equal weighting. I don’t see the point in making temporary changes to the constitution that will need to be updated later. Let’s make one change that is future-proof, while we’re still fairly small and flexible. The Auckland branch should be no different to the other branches, the structure should be egalitarian so that there is no perception of bias towards any branch.

Each branch can maintain its own gear pool and bank account and have its own committee. Branches can lend each other funds for projects, with the coordination of the President, so even if some are wealthier the others can benefit. Each branch can experiment independently with approaches to marketing, funding, etc, and the approaches that prove successful can be adopted by other branches. The outstanding question is then whether a central bank account is also needed, for funding activities that benefit all the branches such as national marketing, a national publication, national infrastructure such as the society website and Diatribe, etc. Where would the funds for that central account come from, given that it’s individual branches who will usually make the income?

I’d also suggest that the role of overall President of the society should be an elected role that any member of the society can be voted into, regardless of whether they also hold another position in the committee(s). I don’t see why it would have to be a committee member, so I’d like to propose that aspect of the proposal either be dropped or another option added. As the society expands and the role of President becomes more demanding, it may become desirable for the President to not be burdened with additional duties. However, if the President is allowed to hold another position as well, rather than being required to, that’s more flexible.

I’d say, retain the central committee as a way of coordinating the regional committee’s, with maybe the renaming of a General Officer/addition of a Regional Officer or extension of the President role to help get the groups coordinating in the sense of what your talking about Paddy, and to help retain some sort of central powerbase so that we still have some sort of direction and to make sure we don’t we’re doing.

That may have already been said, or understood I just wanted to get down. Hope it’s a decent suggestion…

If the ammendment to put in the previous experience requirement is voted on, I will put forward one suggestion.

That Motion 8 be changed from…

Amendment to Section 19 - No member may hold the office of President or Regional Director until they have served one full term in any other office.

To two motions

Amendment to Section 19 - [color=#FF0000]As of the start of 2010[/color], No member may [color=#FF0000]be nominated[/color] for the office of President until they have served one full term in any other office [color=#FF0000]of NZLARPS[/color].

Amendment to Where is appropriate - No member may [color=#FF0000]be nominated[/color] for the office of Regional Director until they have served one full term in any other office [color=#FF0000]of NZLARPS, unless this is the first year of the formation of that specific regional commitee[/color].

Reasons for the changes are below in the order they appear:

  1. The Date of Implentation - As these motions come into effect as they are voted on (ie before the elections) and nominations will be put forward previous to the meeting, we dont want to invalidate any nominations that have already been put forward to this AGM. This way the cluase goes in and there will be plenty of notice, no-one can say that the motion came out of nowhere as it will have been in the constitution for a year before the first set of nominations where it will be of effect. And the start of 2010 is a clearer date than saying “the end of the AMG”.

  2. The “Be Nominated” Change - Someone who hasn’t previously held a positions could get in at this election and then be invalidated when this clause came into effect (which with the previous change would have been the start of 2010).

  3. Of NZLARPS - just to clarify what I assume is meant

  4. First year of regional commitee prevision - So that People can actualy run for regional director, cause not many people in regions out of auckland have held a position in the club. Other wise Regional Director of a new region would be EXTREAMLY diffucult to get the first year they form unless you have held a position else where. Gives new forming regions a little more wiggle room to set up.

Just a suggestion.

Whats the rational behind removing the 2 year Presidency term?
I remember in the past a large number of people were glad there was restriction.
Personally I think its good to have a restriction as it encourages new blood and prevents dynasties/cults of personality as the incumbent always has such an overwhelming advantage.
I’d consider an extension to maybe a 3 year term restriction, but I think it’d be a mistake to have no restriction.

I don’t think that Anna has so much a cult of personality, as a cult of impressed-with-getting-shit-done.

In more general terms, I think the incumbent only has an advantage if they have impressed the members with results. Otherwise they’re at a disadvantage, because they’ve had an opportunity and haven’t delivered.

There are no restrictions on how many times someone can be Prime Minister in NZ, but it doesn’t seem to prevent regular change when people want it.

I’m for minimising restrictions and letting the voters decide.

I wasn’t applying the cult-of-personality description to Anna, but to her predecessor, where the 2 year restriction kicked in and helped Anna take her chance and get shit done.
And no, NZ doesn’t have that resriction but the US does - otherwise we might still have Bush.

Its a restriction on consecutive terms anyway isn’t it? So serve 2, have 1 off and you can can be elected President again for another 2.

Meh, just musing wondering what people thought. I think change is good and sometimes change has to be forced.

[quote=“Scotty”]I wasn’t applying the cult-of-personality description to Anna, but to her predecessor, where the 2 year restriction kicked in and helped Anna take her chance and get shit done.
And no, NZ doesn’t have that resriction but the US does - otherwise we might still have Bush.

Its a restriction on consecutive terms anyway isn’t it? So serve 2, have 1 off and you can can be elected President again for another 2.

Meh, just musing wondering what people thought. I think change is good and sometimes change has to be forced.[/quote]

I think the biggest reason why we should change the term restriction, is because we need to trust our members more. If people get sick of someone constantly getting president, then they wont vote for that person again.

I dont see why, if we have someone who really wants to be president and does a goodjob, that person should be forced to not be able to run after two years, especially if the society still wants that person to be president.

i agree, i think the members are all pretty up on who’s doing the work/who knows their way around, i trust them to vote for the right person. I feel excluding someone for not serving a whole year in nz larps is a bit rough. especially if they have experience in larp and organization (perhaps ppl from overseas etc, people in nz scene who’ve larped for years but havn’t been members for long.).

Here’s some historical trivia.

The reason for the 2-year-term limitation in the original constitution is because we lifted most of the legalese from the constitution of the New Zealand Asian Dance Assosciation. They, in turn, has lifted a lot from the Taiwanese government constitution, which in turn inherited from the US Constitution.

So there you are, its all the American’s fault :slight_smile:

Actually, there is a separate debate between ‘unthinking cut-and-paste’ and ‘don’t reinvent the wheel’.

Should NZLARPS have the 2-year restriction? I can see both points - it stops the presidency becoming owned by one person, but on the other hand it prevents a good president from continuing indefinitely. Although, in the case of the NZADA (mentioned above) it didn’t work - the original president still ran everything via a puppet president who always obeyed their orders…

FWIW, my opinion -
I think the term restriction is on the whole a good thing to keep stuff moving; whether it should be 2,3 or 5 is another point.
The requirement for people to have been in the committee for a year before standing for pres I dont like so much (although I think they should have been in the SOCIETY for a year). After all, people will usually vote for an experienced committee member over someone who joined yesterday anyway.

Another reason for cycling through presidents is so they don’t burn out and give up in disgust, although I expect that a healthy society would be breeding up strong successors/people to interchange with, anyway.

[quote=“Scotty”]I think its good to have a restriction as it encourages new blood and prevents dynasties/cults of personality as the incumbent always has such an overwhelming advantage.
[/quote]

i apologize if my last post look at bit cut-and-paste or repetitive of idea, i submitted it way earlier on in the forum, just after ryans ‘being told who to vote for’ post so but there must have been a glitch, im going to hit up the diatribe support forum.

as for cults of personality i do think the social element of NZLARPs could be particularly susceptible to this, as it has been in the past (as far as i have seen in GMing/playing) and i shall muse on this. stay tuned.

I spent a night going over the constitution to clear up how certain motions would effect the constitution (and have suggested some re-wordings on things and splitting one of the motions into 2 seperate motions)…But I found, There is already a rule that they have to have been in the club for 3 months at least…

Greg O’Connor of the Police Association is, IMO, a good reason to encourage turnover. He’s vile, and has become more turgid over time. Not saying this is Anna’s destiny or anything :slight_smile:

Term restriction is quite a blunt instrument for the purpose role rejuvenation, and could be replaced with proactive succession planning - in fact it’s something that could be done for a number of committee roles.

Would people be happy with extending the term limit insted of removing it? To maybe 5 years instead of 2?

Thanks Steve for the historical trivia of how the rule came about. It was one thing I was interested in finding out whether it was actively put in or arrived by default.

One other reason is to broaden the base of leadership experience. If the current leader (president director whatever they get called) gets burnt out and ups and leaves for another country, if there is no one else around with experience of the position, it can make it hard for the society to keep on going like it should.

(And I would suggest to keep Anna out of the discussion - it is about the constitutional change. Anna has stated that she will not be commenting on this point, maintaining a professional abstention.)

To answer Cameron’s question, I think a longer term of office may be a reasonable compromise. 3 years would be my personal pick.

I think 5 years is too long Cameron, I think 3 years would be a better option.

I see no need for any limit. If we get sick of someone, we’ll vote them out.

The fear of a “cult of personality” is misplaced. When we want a change, we’ll vote for it. We are not a society of sheep who need rules to tell us what’s good for us. We are a society of independently-minded individuals who will vote each year for the person we think is best suited from the candidates available at that time. If a President is burning out, they can easily step down or be voted out.

The role of President of the society is an administrative and representative one. It is not a role that comes with special authority. Society decisions are made by majority vote of the whole committee. The President has one vote like the rest of the committee, apart from casting a deciding vote in the event of a tie. There is no reason to focus on limiting the term of the President as compared to any other committee role. The Presidency is not a role with special authority to veto measures, as it is in the United States. The President of NZLARPS is a useful figurehead. They are not a dictator.

I was not involved in initiating this proposal to remove the term limit. But I do think it’s the best course of action. The term limit is an inherited rule that we don’t need.

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]I see no need for any limit. If we get sick of someone, we’ll vote them out.

The fear of a “cult of personality” is misplaced. When we want a change, we’ll vote for it. We are not a society of sheep who need rules to tell us what’s good for us. We are a society of independently-minded individuals who will vote each year for the person we think is best suited from the candidates available at that time. If a President is burning out, they can easily step down or be voted out.

The role of President of the society is an administrative and representative one. It is not a role that comes with special authority. Society decisions are made by majority vote of the whole committee. The President has one vote like the rest of the committee, apart from casting a deciding vote in the event of a tie. There is no reason to focus on limiting the term of the President as compared to any other committee role. The Presidency is not a role with special authority to veto measures, as it is in the United States. The President of NZLARPS is a useful figurehead. They are not a dictator.

I was not involved in initiating this proposal to remove the term limit. But I do think it’s the best course of action. The term limit is an inherited rule that we don’t need.[/quote]

You said that so much better than I would have been able to. Thanks Ryan, I completely agree.

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
rules to tell us what’s good for us.[/quote]

You are aware that this is a live action role playing society in which people play games in which they follow and abide by a set of rules…

We’re not talking about a game.

We’re talking about a rule that restricts who we can nominate to represent us on the committee. I want a free choice of candidates to nominate and vote for, not a selection of candidates limited by an arbitrary rule.

Each year a different selection of potential candidates will be available, and I want to be able to vote freely based on the changing circumstances from year to year. A rule that might stop us from voting for the best person for the job, just because they’ve been doing it for a while, is a bad rule.