The 2 month rule

nzLARPS
#1

You may very well think that, but the constitution says otherwise. In order to nominate or be nominated, you must have been a member for two months before doing so. Nominations in violation of this clause cannot legally be accepted.

If you find this rule inconvenient, then I suggest you change it through amendment at the AGM. But you cannot simply pretend it does not exist.

Edit to add: obviously you can vote if you pay at the meeting. The constitution only prescribes nominations and standing, presumably to prevent entryism.

#2

[quote=“Nikki”]
Well I guess that means I wont be able to stand for this year’s committee. :frowning: Therefore I am going to have to withdraw my own nomination and decline all others because they are not valid anyway.[/quote]

Or propose a change to the constitution to be voted on at the National AGM.

I understand the reasoning behind such a rule, but it has not been (or has selectively been) enforced in the past. (I remember when I was National Secretary there being several committee members who were not members of NZLARPS either before or after their election). Perhaps the society should discuss whether they feel the need for this clause to remain in the constitution?

#3

[quote=“Anastriel”][quote=“Nikki”]
Well I guess that means I wont be able to stand for this year’s committee. :frowning: Therefore I am going to have to withdraw my own nomination and decline all others because they are not valid anyway.[/quote]

Or propose a change to the constitution to be voted on at the National AGM.

I understand the reasoning behind such a rule, but it has not been (or has selectively been) enforced in the past. (I remember when I was National Secretary there being several committee members who were not members of NZLARPS either before or after their election). Perhaps the society should discuss whether they feel the need for this clause to remain in the constitution?[/quote]

That would be a good idea. ATM its primary effect seems to be to stop capable, qualified people from serving on the committee, meaning that the burden of administrivia falls on those who do keep their memberships up to date.

#4

Im not sure if it is a good idea to change it because I believe the reason it was put there in the first place was to stop what happened with AMERICA one year, where a whole bunch of people joined on the nght for the sole purpose of changing the club to a war gaming club? I am fuzzy on the details but I think it will need discussing before changing it because I have been slack and havent renewed my membership yet

#5

Not exactly what happened because as IdiotSavant pointed out, people can join on the night and still vote. All they need to do is elect people who HAVE been members for 2 months, or just vote on constitutional changes. This clause doesn’t really prevent a hostile takeover if someone really wants to go there.

I don’t think this is just about your situation Nikki, and I believe IdiotSavant pointed out some others as well. It’s more about raising awareness of the constitution and opening the floor for members to have their say. Does this clause serve any useful purpose? It might be that we decide the clause should stay for your reason above, or because we need to encourage memberships (I think a lot of people let their memberships lapse without realising it), but that is something that the society should decide.

Actually now I think about it, I think that the first time I was elected Secretary I hadn’t been a member for 2 months. I think I joined for the first time at the AGM, which is how I remember it’s time to renew my membership :wink:

#6

Yay, thanks James.

Regarding the membership. I agree that the rule in the constitution is there to prevent takeovers by the unscrupulous, and is needed.

How about a new rule that others who wish to stand can do so by the [b]Unanimous /b approval of the attendees of those at the AGM. Basically - at the end of the nominations phase, the nominees membership criteria is ascertained, and a vote is held as to whether they can still stand. Then proceed to the nominee speeches, then vote as per normal etc.

Until there is an reliable notification system from the National secretary, giving reasonable warning that their membership is about to expire, I think it is too onerous for people to keep track of their membership, and way too easy to lapse without realising.

#7

Just to section 22b reads “two months immediately proceeding the date of submitting the nomination form” not two months before the date of the election…so if your membership is current and has been for the last 2 months as of the date of nomination you can be validly nominated and run and pay on the day of the AGM (as you still must be a member to be on the committee as under section 20). Which means if you membership lapses between nomination and AGM it doesn’t invalidate you.

If your going by it as written…
But if your going strictly by what’s written…

22a states nominations “shall be proposed and seconded by two (2) members on a written form signed by the candidate and the proposer and the seconder and handed to the Secretary” so in writing which we haven’t done for a while, we are being pretty lax as is.

…Also hey look parish is legally obligated to gift the sheriff a duck each year at Christmas…

It’s not perfect, no constitution is. We probably should tighten those clauses up I bit… I’ll see what amendments I can come up with for the next national general meeting.

#8

I think that if we want to enforce this clause then we also need to update the database. Looking at it it seems that it shows expiry date of membership, but not when that membership was paid and verified and whether there are any gaps in membership. So someone whose membership expired could rejoin now and there is nothing to show that they were not a member for the last 2 months. I assume that the treasurer and secretary could find out if needed but I don’t think they usually would check this?

Also if someone has applied it doesn’t show any date at all. For example IdiotSavant is showing as applied but has not been verified yet, which usually means that he has paid but the Treasurer and Secretary have not yet confirmed this. But because he has applied for renewal, the expiry date of his previous membership is no longer showing. So we can’t see whether he was a member 2 months ago, or whether he is currently a member, only that he has applied to be a member and is not yet accepted.

#9

Despite being in the constitution, we’ve never, ever actually used that rule about requiring to be a member for two months. Ever. Seriously. I know that we can’t just ignore it because we don’t like it, but seriously, what a pain in the backside.

#10

Absolutely.

Pish. There is clearly a pattern of conduct of accepting electronic transactions, from which consent to accept such transactions can be inferred under s16(2) Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

You can get a good idea from the expiry date (which should be a year after payment date or lapse-date, whichever is later). But for edge cases, doule-checking with the secretary and treasurer would be a good idea.

The applied thing is a PITA, since if you renew before your membership lapses (as I did back in July), it loses your dates. It also doesn’t help that the membership database is not exactly up to date…

I refused nomination to committee a couple of years ago because my membership had lapsed and I failed the two month test. But yes, if people don’t want to enforce it, then they should get rid of it, or reduce it to one month, or say it doesn’t apply to serving committee members seeking re-election, or whatever.

#11

[quote=“Cameron”]Just to section 22b reads “two months immediately proceeding the date of submitting the nomination form” not two months before the date of the election…so if your membership is current and has been for the last 2 months as of the date of nomination you can be validly nominated and run and pay on the day of the AGM (as you still must be a member to be on the committee as under section 20). Which means if you membership lapses between nomination and AGM it doesn’t invalidate you.

If your going by it as written…
But if your going strictly by what’s written…

22a states nominations “shall be proposed and seconded by two (2) members on a written form signed by the candidate and the proposer and the seconder and handed to the Secretary” so in writing which we haven’t done for a while, we are being pretty lax as is.

…Also hey look parish is legally obligated to gift the sheriff a duck each year at Christmas…

It’s not perfect, no constitution is. We probably should tighten those clauses up I bit… I’ll see what amendments I can come up with for the next national general meeting.[/quote]

Good point Cameron. If we are, all of a sudden, going to insist on following the 2 month membership rule for nominees, then we really should be following the proper nomination process too, as they are equally part of our Constitution.

Which would make all of the online nominations invalid. It will also make it very hard for Aucklanders to be nominated for the National Committee for this election since they have to sign a written form with the proposer and the seconder and hand it to the Secretary who is currently in Wellington. Without forward planning this is impractical, and almost certainly too late for this election, since they forms must be handed to the Secretary, not posted to them. What is the cut off date for National Nominations?

Or we could all be less Officious about all of this and let the common practices that we have been using for a long, long time stand and let people be nominated and voted for if they are members of the club. In all of the years that I have been a member, these rules have not been enforced. It serves no good purpose and will just stop good candidates from standing. It will just be a big pain to deal with.

Why limit good people from volunteering to help run the society?

#12

[quote=“IdiotSavant”]Pish. There is clearly a pattern of conduct of accepting electronic transactions, from which consent to accept such transactions can be inferred under s16(2) Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
[/quote]

There is also clearly a pattern of conduct of accepting candidates that have had lapsed membership or were not members prior to the day of the elections.

#13

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. There’s a specific law covering electronic transactions, saying that they can be consented to (and very specificly that consent can be inferred from behaviour) - but that only trumps that one specific clause of NZLARPS’ constitution. There’s no law granting us a general out for rules we don’t like or simply can’t be arsed following.

#14

This isn’t the first time the two month thing has come up. It’s been raised repeatedly, year after year, sometimes followed and sometimes not.

It really seems like we should ditch it from the constitution. It’s a paranoia clause.

#15

We can add it to the list for that SGM that’s being proposed.

#16

I have split the discussion of the 2 month rule into this new topic, in order to keep the Auckland nomination thread on topic.

Ryan

#17

This rule is problematic not just in the future, but right now.

Could we move the AGMs back enough to give us time to propose a constitution change to get rid of it prior to the AGMs?

Alternatively, I have a horrible workaround that I think follows the constitution but is totally not in keeping with its spirit…

#18

If the AGMs were pushed back 1 week or 2 and ADVERTISED well enough there was no confusion that would give us enough notice period. Venue is not an issue for Wellington, we set our date to coincide with Auckland to keep things tidy.

Just allow enough time for the wording to be changed and agreed upon for the motion, because that all has to be accepted and agreed upon 15 days out so all members are aware of it and can vote on it.

#19

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]This rule is problematic not just in the future, but right now.

Could we move the AGMs back enough to give us time to propose a constitution change to get rid of it prior to the AGMs?[/quote]

The problem would be that the constitutional change would not be in force at the time of nomination, so it would not solve the problem. We can fix it for the future by delaying the AGM for an amendment, or calling an SGM for the same, but its too late to fix it for these elections. Gah!

#20

[quote=“IdiotSavant”][quote=“Ryan Paddy”]This rule is problematic not just in the future, but right now.

Could we move the AGMs back enough to give us time to propose a constitution change to get rid of it prior to the AGMs?[/quote]

The problem would be that the constitutional change would not be in force at the time of nomination, so it would not solve the problem. We can fix it for the future by delaying the AGM for an amendment, or calling an SGM for the same, but its too late to fix it for these elections. Gah![/quote]

I thought that nominations for regional elections are accepted up until the election? I thought it was only national elections that need to be in early to allow for distance voting?