2008/10/2 James Pluck <papabearnz(a)gmail.com>:
This is to formally announce the intention of the committee to hold a Special General Meeting 15 minutes prior to the AGM (7:15 pm).
The topic on the table for this meeting is the motion: "That the charter be amended to allow former paid members of the Waikato Linux Users Group to vote at an AGM of the WLUG with the proviso that their subscription be renewed at or before the AGM."
I'm uncomfortable with that motion as it stands. A person who paid a sub 20 years ago could turn up 5 minutes before the meeting, pay, the sub, and expect to vote, whereas a new member cannot.
How soon before the meeting they turn up is irrelevant. If the former member is renewing their membership for the next year, this rule will allow them a vote. As this change reads, anyway ;) As it stands, I cannot vote at the AGM (my membership lapsed several years back due to me being out of town and no committee ever following up renewals). Nor can a large number of other old members, who might want to vote. I could front up $20 for a retrospective 2007-2008 membership, I suppose, but I better get on to that pretty quickly if that's the case. When we[1] wrote the charter, we added that clause thinking to prevent a hostile takeover. The modification seems like an attempt to keep that spirit, but allow a previous member whose membership has lapsed to renew and vote at the agm. In hindsight, this seems fairly optimistic that anyone would want to do such a thing. Not to say WLUG isn't or wasn't a worthy cause, just that I doubt very much it would happen. And, if I can in fact pay my dues right now, become a 2007-2008 member, and then renew at the AGM, and be eligible to vote, then I've circumvented the original clause anyway. This point did come up when we wrote it, but we decided that if someone really wanted to stump up enough two-year memberships to get a significant membership into WLUG in order to do something hostile, then there isn't much more we can do about it.
Is the WLUG an incorporated society? If not, it should be!
It is, and has been, for a number of years. [1] I used "we" here inclusively of myself, because I drafted the original charter, and worked through changes to it with the then- current membership at the point we incorporated. A bit of history for you ;). This also means I accept responsibility for this annoying clause, and it's why I feel I can criticise it's usefulness :)