Interesting suite of arguments!!!!
Here's a thought:
Why have members of National at all??
Why not have the various ANGFAs, Native fish clubs are other interested
parties became the actual members. Set the membership fee to (say) $1
($5, $10, $3000 whatever) per member of the club + say another amount
for the "club" itself.
Then the member club is entitled to all benefits of ANGFA National (ie/
members can have access to FoS etc. use the name, stick "Member of
ANGFA" after their name etc.).
The National Committee then can be drawn from the overall membership of
each club, and maybe each club appoints a "liaison" (????). And why not
set up a Mailing List just for committee members of the "New" ANGFA. (or
even the old ANGFA). Then keep the "new" committee in one area (Syd,
Bris or Melb - Nth America whatever) and one (2,3,4 whatever) "liaisons"
with e-mail access are subscribed to the Committee Mailing List (CML).
Sure this may be a bit slower than face-to-face discussion but at least
all member clubs can gain relatively easy access to the committee
discussion. And then e-mail the minutes of Committee meetings to all
interested members rather than post - saves $$$.
In addition if a member club (lets use ANGFA Qld <g>) has 250 members.
It has paid it's ANGFA national membership fee (of say $5 per member =
$1,250.00 + $5 for the "club") then ANGFA National can bulk ship FoS and
the Bulletin to ANGFA and hence pass some of the cost of distribution
onto the member clubs. Saves ANGFA National $$$ and allows the member
club to provide a service to it's members.
How ANGFA Q. wishes to pass on the $5/member onto its constituency is
also ANGFA Q's problem. Maybe it raises entrance fee by $5. Maybe it
decides only interested people pay $15-$20??? Heck, ANGFA Q. may as
well make a profit on it???
The benefit to this system is that it can be open to all clubs, not just
the ANGFA's or Native fish clubs. Why others (such as sicklids <g>)
would join has got me beat, but hey, if you don't ask them, and/or don't
offer the "system" then the answer is ALWAYS "no".
Forgive a young man's ramblings
Many Tanks
G
The Value of Potential
"Potential and 50 cents will let you buy a cup of coffee from McDonalds"
PS: How many members are currently part of RML land??
> ----------
> From: peter.unmack at ASU.Edu[SMTP:peter.unmack at ASU.Edu]
> Reply To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 1998 11:47
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [RML] SPAM National membership
>
> 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
> individuals.
>
> Tootles
>
> Peter Unmack
>