Re: [activities] Re: [SLUG] Motion to be put at the AGM: Wind up SLUG

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Mary Gardiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011, James Polley wrote:
>> I’ve drafted the motion I’d like to put at the AGM onto the wiki
>> (http://wiki.slug.org.au/windup). The final wording needs to be
>> announced 21 days before the AGM, so please submit any feedback you
>> have in the next few days.
>
> A couple of things:
>
> Proxies
> -------
>
> It seems that this is a motion where many people (myself included) may wish to
> have a proxy vote on on their behalf, and it would be good if the returning
> officer could take real care with the count, including any proxy votes held.
>
> Membership fees
> ---------------
>
> """
> In accordance with the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 section 65, I move
> that all surplus property be donated to Linux Australia, to be used by them to
> support the open source community in the Sydney area.
> """
>
> If I understand correctly, what this means is this:
>  (1) the people wishing to vote will need to pay $25 in order to be financial
>     for the entirety of 2011
>  (2) assuming the motion passes, the organisation they paid $25 to join
>     (support) for an entire year will shortly be wound up

That's correct. I do think that this is a bit ludicrous, but I think
that asking LA to keep the funds for use locally means that they'll
still be used to support the local community - except that where
before they would only have been used to pay insurance, they will now
be freed up for other uses.

On the other hand, I can't think offhand of any other uses; we've
certainly not had a problem with expenses over the last few years, so
maybe the funds could be better used by LA elsewhere

I've updated my draft motions at http://wiki.slug.org.au/windup to be
more clear that each major bullet point is a separate motion. I've
also split the part that would request that LA use the funds locally
within Sydney into a separate motion, so that that part could be
considered separately.

>
> I don't know if it is legally appropriate, and it might not be financially
> viable if SLUG has to renew its insurance one more time (I don't recall when
> your renewal date is), but perhaps this clause of the motion could be amended
> to state that the balance of people's 2011 membership fees will be refunded pro
> rata at the wind up of the organisation, or similar? At least on request? It
> may be that for various reasons people do not want to pay $25 to join SLUG and
> then have most of it eventually donated to Linux Australia. (Especially, but
> not only, if they are paying $25 primarily to vote against the motion.)

The insurance date is in the second half of the year iirc, so not a
concern as long as we wind up before then.

I don't believe we could refund membership money. Section 65 of the
act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s65.html)
says that:

> Any such distribution of surplus property:
> (a) must be approved by the Director-General, and
> (b) is not to be made to or for the benefit of:
> (i) any member or former member of the association,

I think that refunding members would be "for the benefit of" a
member/former member of the association.

> An alternative might be radically lowering the membership fee for 2011, to,
> say, $1 or so, or even making it free. I *think* the constitution allows for
> this although your AGM notice has already stated a higher amount so also
> perhaps not. This has merits for making this vote about SLUG's future more
> accessible to the entire community, but probably isn't viable: if the motion
> fails, I assume SLUG can't pay its 2011 insurance premium without those
> membership fees.

Correct on all points. The constitution allows for the committee to
vary the fee at will. I believe that membership fees last year
actually feel slightly short of covering the insurance premium.

I don't feel that $25 ($15 for students) is much of a burden. The
money will either go towards insurance fees; or be used by LA to
support the local community, so I don't personally feel that it would
be wasted either way.

However, if there cases where someone is genuinely unable to afford
the fee but does have a strong interest in voting, I'd be willing (I
can't speak for the rest of the committee; and they would need to
formally vote on such an action) to waive the fee in their case.

>
> -Mary
> --
> SLUG Activities
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG Activities
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html