The 2 month rule

nzLARPS
#21

[quote=“Anastriel”][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?[/quote]

Technicly neither Auckland nor national have set a deadline for nominations, but distance voting certainly imposes limits on the latter. Wellington’s deadline is 5pm the day of the AGM, as with last year.

If nominations are permitted from the floor, then passing the constitutional amendment in the national AGM before the RGMs would allow those people to be nominated.

#22

Can I suggest then.

We push the AGMs (all of them), back enough time to get an amendment written up, as it seems it is wanted.
Someone writes a motion and a change to the clause and we publicise it.

We have the National AGM first (say 7pm, date TBA). Vote the amendment in…or not, as the members decide.
Then we have the Auckland and Wellington AGMs, and you can have whatever officers you want (as long as they meet the conditions of the constitution).

#23

Actually, I take that back. Rule changes are not valid until filed with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. So, we just have to live with it this year.

Incidentally, the changes we made last year appear not to have been filed (you can check here; our registry number is 1772246). This needs to be corrected ASAP if we want them to be of legal effect.

#24

We could make the change at a national SGM or AGM, then file it, then call the regional AGMs.

Hearing back from filing only takes a couple of weeks I think. I did the filing for the regionalisation changes to the constitution.

Man, this is way too much bureaucracy.

#25

My horrible workaround is that we have a clause stating that vacant positions can be filled by appointment by the committee. So we could not officially elect anyone to some roles, then have the committee appoint someone. There is no requirement regarding how long the appointee has been a member.

#26

I ‘think’ the first suggestion might work Ryan, and one I was suggesting to someone else.

We would have to be onto it with writing up the Motion. Then getting the constitution filed. And it means extra meetings, but it seems the cleanest way to work within the constitution.

#27

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]We could make the change at a national SGM or AGM, then file it, then call the regional AGMs.

Hearing back from filing only takes a couple of weeks I think. I did the filing for the regionalisation changes to the constitution.

Man, this is way too much bureaucracy.[/quote]

I just spoke to the societies office and the lovely lady on the phone says that we can submit changes to the constitution by scanning the form and emailing it to them and then they process this in 3-5 working days.

It is not undoable and they seem very informitive and easy to deal with.

I have asked her to email me the form if people are still keen to go ahead with this.

#28

It does mean we will have to have two seperate meetings with quorum which I think is the only difficult part. I am happy to help with organising the meetings (if people want to go ahead with this) but someone will need to take responsibility for writing up the propposed changes to the constitution and advertsing this for 14 days.

#29

I am not sure that “casual vacancy… caused by resignation, death, expulsion, absence or removal from office” includes “no-one being elected in the first place” (because, in context, “absence” refers to 23(a), under which committee members who repeatedly don’t show are deemed to have resigned).

However, you could do an Albert Henry, elect a volunteer placeholder who doesn’t actually want the job, have them resign immediately, and then use the casual vacancy provision to appoint a member who does want it but who has been ruled out by the two-week rule. Obviously, it would need to be made clear to voters that that was the plan beforehand so they were not being deceived. That would be constitutional, but ugly.

Edit to add: And on the third hand: s36 says that questions of interpretation are for the membership at a general meeting. So you could ask by motion whether a casual vacancy includes someone not being elected, and appoint if they say yes.

#30

(Note that this uses the revised numbering as passed at last year’s AGM)

[quote]Motion
That section 23(b) is deleted.[/quote]

Yes, its that simple.

#31

Although it’s a nuisance about this rule, it’s really nice to see so many people engaging with the society. :wink:

As Anna K has said in discussions on the committee forums, the contributions of the society to the incredible growth in size and quality that New Zealand larp has experienced in the last few years should never be underestimated. Nobody likes bureaucracy (the current discussion being a case in point), but NZLARPS has truly been the backbone that has supported this growth.

#32

[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 simpler option is that we just live with it this year, and fix for next year with an SGM in a month or so.

Wellington seems like it will be able to nominate a quorate committee within the constraints of the 2-month rule. Auckland has 50% more members, so should be able to do the same.

#33

Auckland committee involves significantly more commitment than the Wellington committee. The Auckland committee has monthly meetings, a much larger gear library and additional work that comes from a larger population, more games and more issues. Whereas looking at the minutes for committee meetings it seems that Wellington has had 3 meetings in the last year, and very few posts in the committee forums.

This means it’s harder to get dedicated and competent people to stand for positions. And we often only have one person stand, which does not encourage a healthy democracy. And some years no one has wanted to stand for a particular position, and so someone is pressured to stand and often they then aren’t very interested in fulfilling the role.

If Auckland members wish to be able to nominate and vote from all the interested candidates, then it’s our duty as existing committee members to facilitate this, even if it’s not the “simpler option”.

#34

[quote=“IdiotSavant”](Note that this uses the revised numbering as passed at last year’s AGM)

[quote]Motion
That section 23(b) is deleted.[/quote]

Yes, its that simple.[/quote]

I am a bit concerned that if we just take out this rule there may be repercussions. Presuming it was put in to prevent Entryism, which I assume means to stop a block of “new” members putting forward someone for committee positions with their aim of taking over the society for their own aims. Whether this is a likely scenario or not, is not relevant. The issue that it could happen (and I have been in a situation when something similiar did) needs to be allowed for.

Without having read 23(b) (there is no direct link to the constitution from diatribe NZLarp section) how about something like:
NZLarps members who have not been members for the previous 2 months may stand for committee positions, provided that they have the unaminous approval to stand, of the outgoing committee members present at the AGM.

This assumes that the existing committee, who have been appointed by the society best know about the positions/roles and whether a person is suitable to stand for the position. This is just giving them approval to stand, and the society goes through the election process as usual. Or does this way potentially lead to a type of despotism?

Are there any other ways to skin this cat?

#35

Here is a link to the Constitution, with the amendments that passed last year included:

[attachment=0]NZLARPSConstitution2012.doc[/attachment]
Thanks to Idiot for compiling this, I just helped with the formatting. This isn’t live on the NZLARPS website yet, because we need to file it with the Societies office first.

Last year’s amendments are underlined.

#36

I think your idea had merit Hannah. It’s what we’ve effectively done in the past, with the committee choosing to ignore that section. If they were concerned about a takeover, they probably would have enforced it.

However, I still think that people being nominated should at least be current members of the society at the time of election.

There is a question of timing. When should the committee approve people who aren’t members? When they’re nominated, or just prior to the election at the AGM? It would be easier just prior to the election as you say, because then it could just be a show of hands and not require the committee to discuss it in their private forum.

They could do it all in one motion at the meeting - “I propose that we accept all candidates for positions, even those who have not been members for at least two months.”

That way nominations can go smoothly without discussion, so long as the nominees intend to be members on the day of the AGM and are known larpers there is no reason to expect their nominations won’t stand.

#37

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]Here is a link to the Constitution, with the amendments that passed last year included:

[attachment=0]NZLARPSConstitution2012.doc[/attachment]
Thanks to Idiot for compiling this, I just helped with the formatting. This isn’t live on the NZLARPS website yet, because we need to file it with the Societies office first.

Last year’s amendments are underlined.[/quote]

Thanks to you both for getting this sorted. It’s really good to be able to read the Constitution, and we need to unsure that in the future it is updated in a timely manner and made accessible for all members. I’m assuming that this should fall under the Secretary’s responsibility but it might be good to clarify, as I suppose an argument could be made for it being the President?

Also the Constitution defines the National Secretary role as:

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.

Which says nothing about maintaining the National membership database, which takes up the bulk of the Secretary’s time. You could say this falls under “correspondence” but that doesn’t quite seem right. If we are voting on Constitutional changes, perhaps we could tidy this up?

Also I think it would be good to clarify section 23a that electronic nominations, seconds and acceptance are acceptable rather than a written form? While Idiot pointed out before that the legislation supersedes this clause, I am not entirely convinced and would prefer to have this explicitly stated so we don’t find ourselves in a similar position in a few years time.

#38

I was assuming it was the secretary’s job to keep it updated and file any changes (anything with the Registrar is “official correspondence”). It would be IT’s job to get the finalised version on the website.

[quote]Also the Constitution defines the National Secretary role as:

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.

Which says nothing about maintaining the National membership database, which takes up the bulk of the Secretary’s time. You could say this falls under “correspondence” but that doesn’t quite seem right. If we are voting on Constitutional changes, perhaps we could tidy this up?[/quote]

Motion:
Section 20 is amended by adding “Maintain the national membership database” to the list of duties of “secretary”.

(Ugly. Is it clear enough?)

Easily done. If combined with the repeal of the two-month rule, its:

Motion:
Section 23 is repealed and the following new section substituted:

[quote]23. Nominations for committee
Every candidate for committee shall be proposed and seconded by two members in the manner approved by the committee.[/quote]

(This allows the current practice of the committee saying that nominations are done via the Diatribe forum, while not tying us to any one technological platform)

#39

[quote=“Hannah”]I am a bit concerned that if we just take out this rule there may be repercussions. Presuming it was put in to prevent Entryism, which I assume means to stop a block of “new” members putting forward someone for committee positions with their aim of taking over the society for their own aims. Whether this is a likely scenario or not, is not relevant. The issue that it could happen (and I have been in a situation when something similiar did) needs to be allowed for.

Without having read 23(b) (there is no direct link to the constitution from diatribe NZLarp section) how about something like:
NZLarps members who have not been members for the previous 2 months may stand for committee positions, provided that they have the unaminous approval to stand, of the outgoing committee members present at the AGM.

This assumes that the existing committee, who have been appointed by the society best know about the positions/roles and whether a person is suitable to stand for the position. This is just giving them approval to stand, and the society goes through the election process as usual. Or does this way potentially lead to a type of despotism?[/quote]

It sounds unpleasantly oligarchical to me. “We’ve got a rule, but those in power can waive it whenever they see fit”. Which means there’s no rule at all.

We have some protection against entryism from non-larpers in that changes to the objects of the society have to be not just filed but approved by the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. So it would be very difficult for people to e.g. turn NZLARPS into a WH40K club. And we have section 5 - the right of the national committee to refuse membership - as the ultimate fallback.

It also solves things for candidates, but not for nominators and seconders (which is a problem this election as well).

But if you’re concerned, here’s an amendment so the members can vote on it:

Motion:
Section 23 is repealed and the following new section substituted:

[quote]23. Nominations for committee
(a) Every candidate for committee shall be proposed and seconded by two members in the manner approved by the committee.
(b) All candidates as well as the proposers and seconders must have been members of the Society for a continuous period of not less than two months immediately proceeding the date of submitting the nomination
© The requirements of subsection (b) can be waived for an election by the unanimous approval of the committee.[/quote]

As written, this would require the committee to waive in advance, and for everyone. If the committee doesn’t say so when the election is called, the two-month rule would apply.

If you want more partiality, you could go “can be waived for a candidate”. If you want approval to be given at the meeting, then it would be “Notwithstanding subsection (b), any nomination meeting the requirements of subsection (a) can be accepted at the meeting by the unanimous approval of the committee”. But note that this has serious implications for distance voters, who will basicly be casting their votes before they know whether all nominations are valid. I think the latter rules out all at-meeting approvals.

But its your motion, so feel free to put it to the committee in whatever form you prefer when the time comes.

#40

In terms of the two month rule, perhaps it could be changed to being something like “23(b) All candidates as well as the proposers and seconders must have been members of the Society for a continuous period of not less than two months within the past three calendar years”. Since memberships are done on a 12 month basis, this would mean that just about anyone who has been a member in the past three years, but accidentally let their membership lapse and signed up again at nomination or meeting time would still be eligible to nominate, vote and stand as soon as they become a paid-up member again (which I think covers everyone who has had an issue with this so far in the past couple of weeks). It should should still prevent people from joining up on the day in order to carry out a takeover of the Society however. This does have the weakness that if membership periods shorter than a full year are offered in the future, it might cause this rule to stop functioning as intended.

Or perhaps alternatively we could include a clause that says if someone has been a member for at least a year in the past, but recently let their membership lapse before joining up again, the two month rule can be ignored, e.g. “this rule does not apply to a member who was a paid-up member for a minimum of one calendar year, and who’s membership had lapsed for a period of no greater than six months within the past calendar year”.

Hopefully everyone can follow what I’m saying. Just a couple more suggestions to consider :slight_smile: