Re: [RML] SPAM National membership

peter.unmack at ASU.Edu
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:47:41 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Barry Meiklejohn wrote:

> Rule 22.6 decrees "Only members (as defined in Article 9) shall be eligible
> to be a member of a Regional Group.
> This basically says that members of a RG must all be members of ANGFA. I
> believe this rule is wrong. This rule and some few others that basically
> give ANGFA total control over the RG (both finances and running) are out of
> date and may be hangovers from the initial splits that occurred between
> "personalities" of ANGFA. Indeed there is an article in rule 9 that states

It does not give ANGFA national any control over regional groups. This is
bullshit. All it says is that you have to be a member of national and the
regional group. To me, this does not say national controls regional
groups. The only reason why that was done was to try to get "unofficial"
regional groups to get people to join the national club, which at the time
was bordering on broke due to a lack of members. If the half of the Qld
club that were not national members were members, our financial situation
would have been much better. National needs more members to help make the
club more viable in the long term. Waiting for sufficient funds to come
in before you start printing the first issue of a new volume is not a good
way to run a club. Funds may be better now, I don't really now, but back
then things were a little tight at times. How many members does ANGFA
national have as of the end of the last volume of FoS? How many does it
need to be self sufficient based on subscription income?

It would be nice if regional groups not presently covered by the ANGFA
consitition at least offered a discounted combined national and regional
membership cost to encourage more folks to sign up.

> A person who is not a member of the Association at the time of
> incorporation is approved by committee.
> This rule was clearly designed to remove the threat of dissenting voices to
> the then committee.

This doesn't quite make sense, did all of your previous comment come
through? (the bit that starts A person who is ... 'cause that was all I
got and it don't make sense to me).

If I'm reading what I think I am reading that says, ie the committee can
approve or disapprove any memberships by a majority decision (or
something like) then yes, in part I agree with you. It was specifically
put in so we could legally keep out undesirable types like animal libbers
and whatnot who may wish to disrupt the club. You make it sound like we
were Nazis and would squash anyone who opposed us. A little overdone
don't you think? Don't judge the whole committee on a couple of


Peter Unmack