Re: [RML] ANGFA Constitution

andrew.boyd at dfat.gov.au
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 9:50:47 +1000

Doug, I'd be happy to be a part of a working group to develop a
streamlined constitution, as I am sure everyone else concerned will
be. They can put their money where their mouth is.

I would propose that we do the initial workthrough via email, with the
interested unwired (people without net.access, pity them) coming in at
a later stage in the process.

We could even use this list, with those uninterested putting a mail
filter on to shitcan traffic headed "Constitution" in much the same
way that they do already with the word SPAM.

Cheers, Andrew

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [RML] ANGFA Constitution
Author: MIME:dcollom at powerup.com.au at INTERNET-MAIL
Date: 2/11/98 12:48 AM

Well ain't it 'mazin',

I get head down tail up, shoulder to the wheel, nose to the grindstone, and
while in this awkward position don't access the RML for a couple of days.
Back on and whammy there's been a boots and all debate on the
constitution happening !

Very interesting actually, as I got some viewpoints from a couple of fellow
committee members on this topic, unaccompanied by the flushed faces,
screaming, lunging at throats and flow of blood that usually goes with
national committee debates on the constitution.

I think a lot of good stuff has been said that I don't want to go back over,
however picking up a couple of points.

The first, alluded to in Bruce and Barry's pieces, is that there are no full
time paid officials, just a handful of volunteers who are prepared to put in
the time and effort. My answer to those who want things to happen faster is
- No-one is stopping you from getting on with it - if you want something
badly enough - You do it !

It appears this constitutional debate and the one on in Canberra share
more than a few things too.

The first is mis-reporting. There is no way we made a PROMISE to
introduce constitutional change in a set time.

Prior to the 1995 AGM we had already had some long and passionate
debates about the constitution, always in sub-committee mode, as with the
tensions of the time already mentioned in the RML input, there was no way
we were putting out minutes on this sensitive subject. We could not even
agree on many points, so we more than anyone knew that constitutional
changes would not come overnight, and could be a long drawn out
process.

Secondly - As in Canberra, its obvious that it is a damn sight harder to
change a constitution than set it up, legally and membership wise. I have
wondered many times if its worth the time and effort. We have been able
to manage the affairs of the association, largely in spite of rather than
with
the constitution for some years, so is it worth it ? As Alan says it only
when
some pedantic plod challenges you that there is a problem, and an
invitation to join the committee and take on the task usually sends those
annoying types back up the drain they crawled out of. ( And I'd have a
little
bet that all those associated with national committees and AGMs in recent
years immediately put a face on one such drain dweller. )

The committee is agreed that we should have a much simpler constitution,
with most of the general management functions governed by by-laws
which can be readily amended, with only a minimum of safety clauses set
on some financial and election matters, where a general vote is required
for changes.

Of one thing I'm certain, and that is that if some member came to the
committee with a new, simple constitution, legally watertight, and capable
of being put to the membership- we would not be saying no !

So who's volunteering ? - Or has everyone taken one step back and left
me in again ?

Doug