Please reread the below paragraph. I state this rule AND SOME FEW OTHERS
(in the constituiton) give ANGFA total control. This is not bullshit it is a
fact, however I did not want to regurgitate the constitution in whole,
neither did I wish to pick every portion of it to place in my already
lengthy email.
>> 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.
As you appear to have a copy of the constitution please read through Rule 22
specifically :
22.3 ANGFA (national) committee can set the boundaries for membership for
each RG
22.5 The RG comittee may only exercise the powers as approved by (national)
committee
22.10 Full report on activities required to be forwarded to (national)
committee each 3 months
22.11 Full report of transactions and audited Statement of Accounts to be
sent to (national) committee not later than 30 days prior to AGM
22.12 RG may raise money in the name of ANGFA in a manner approved by
(national) committee
22.13-15 Recognition of a RG may me withdrawn through ... c) any act
contrary to those set by management comittee
22.16 If recognition withdrawn, monies raised by the RG shall be forwarded
to the Secretary
22.22 The (national) committee can set annual affiliation for each RG to be
forwarded upon demand
22.23 RG unable to disband without consent of (national) committee
As I read them, the above rules give ANGFA total control of RG. It is these
rules that have scared off clubs interested in affiliation. I must say that
I disagree with these rules but they exist. Please note there are other
portions of the constituion that set out affiliation rules and that protect
other incorporated bodies from these above rules.
>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.
If the "half" of Qld group that were not members of national had been forced
into national membership it is more likely they would have left and the
money would not have been available to national anyway. The current
committee recognises that RG have far more to offer local members than a
national organisation ever could eg., field trips, club auctions,
presentations etc. Also remember that Qld took out club subscriptions (10)
for our library in addition to the subscriptions of members in an effort to
make more money available. There were also significant donations of money
for publications even after the arguements between national and Qld. You too
Peter, must stop playing the Qld vs Vic fiddle - it is best to forget the
old debates and let the wounds continue to heal...
>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.
Agreed
>Funds may be better now, I don't really (k)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?
Funds are better now, thanks in part to the poster set organised by Bruce
and Steve, successful conventions (esp Canberra), and the continued growth
of ANGFA of NA thanks to Roy and Scot and all you US members. However
membership would not finance the publication of Fishes of Sahul. At the end
of last year we had 360 members on our books in Australia and I believe Roy
held about 80? US members (not on Australian books). This would be the
greatest number of members ANGFA has ever had (as well as the most US
members). We are very lucky to have high renewal rates at present and
attribute this purely to the fact that members are getting their
publications on time and feel that the publications (and perhaps ANGFA
itself) are meeting their needs.
Publication costs continue to soar as the journal has evolved with greater
usage of colour under the talented hands of Ron Bowman and Mark Chettle.
However instances where this may have been overdone have been identified and
requests made to the FOS publishing team may help to alleviate some of the
high costs associated with continued production.
>
>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.
True, but you must remember that RG have associated costs as well, hall
hire, newsletter production, mail outs, suppers etc, and these costs have to
be covered. I think most RG charge $10 for membership and this is not an
excessive charge as far as I am concerned. However for a RG member that is
happy with the services provided by his/her RG and not interested in FOS or
Bulletin then an extra $25 is a mammoth slug and some people will not pay
it.
>
>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.
Depending on your perspective it may be a good rule to have. However if you
want an open association you should not keep anybody out - whether you agree
or disagree with them. If a person disagrees with the majority and are
continually frustrated because the majority disagrees with them - they will
eventually realise that the association is not for them.
>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
>individuals.
I have never made any comments as you imply (not to say some people didn't).
All I have done is point out what I feel are problem areas within the
current constitution. Maybe my comments drew this response from you because
you are aware of statements made by various parties in the past and you were
on the committee at the time drafts of the constitution were discussed? You
and I, Peter, have discussed Qld vs Vic issues before and you should know
that I am of the same opinion as Neil Armstrong on the matter, we are
Australians interested in our aquatic environments - not Victorians or
Queenslanders. Lets not let a debate to improve the constitution
disintegrate into denigrations. As I pointed out before we have good and bad
on both sides and we must continue to corroborate or else we risk that which
we least desire...
Thanks for your insights.
Baz.