Re: [RML] SPAM National membership

peter.unmack at ASU.Edu
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:47:20 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Barry Meiklejohn wrote:

Just as an aside before responding to Barry, I figure some historical
perspective might be of interest to some folks. The present constitution
was adapted from an Australian Society for Zookeepers (or something like
that). It is basically a more professional organisation which
has many similarities to ANGFA. I think this was the main reason we used
it as well as the fact that this group had already achieved incorporation
under that constitution. At the time this was considered a much better
alternative than writing one based on a minimal constitution the
incorporation body gives you to start with. Also, due to the legal
problems of running a club without incorporation (ie, the committee are
held legally responsible if someone hurts themselves at an event
organised by the club) we didn't want to take years to get a constitution
in place.

I always wondered why constitution is spelt similarly to constipation.
:-) The two have so much in common in that they are both a major pain in
the arse and they are both full of shit!! Sounds just like Roy too.....

On to Barry,

> As you appear to have a copy of the constitution please read through Rule 22
> specifically :

Well, not exactly, it's about 10,000 miles away.....

> 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.

Ok, I'll eat shit, you are right. I wasn't aware of all that other stuff.
:-) I think national vs RGs will always be a sticky point. Mind you,
these rules haven't really prevented several new groups forming, although
of course most folks wouldn't be aware if it had stopped any.

I guess my greatest concern is what happens when you get a "rebel" group
started by someone like Gordon Hides and he goes off racing around doing
things in the name of ANGFA? How do you retain sufficient power to be
able to control the use of the name ANGFA without holding a gun to
everyone's head?

> 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.

Indeed, most clubs struggle when publications start running late as ANGFA
was at least once in its history.

> 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.

It's never stopped me. :-)

> Thanks for your insights.

No worries mate. Thanks for raising these issues.

Peter Unmack