[H-GEN] Support to change Humbug's constitution.

[Rob Unsworth]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
[ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
[ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Bruce Campbell wrote:

> [ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
> [ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
> [ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]
> 
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raymond Smith wrote:
> 
> raymon> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Rob Unsworth wrote:
> raymon> > If the proxy vote is counted for a quorum, then an abstaining vote is a
> raymon> > vote for the negative.
> raymon> 
> raymon> Could you please provide a reference for this. I cannot see hopw this
> raymon> could be correct when things like a company AGM proxy form include 'YES',
> raymon> 'NO', and 'ABSTAIN' on every resolution.
> raymon> 
> raymon> My laws of meetings is a bit hazy, but I cannot remember this.
> 
> A 'proxy' vote is considered to be part of a quorum.  This is a completely
> different beast from an 'abstaining' vote.
> 
> A vote of 'ABSTAIN', whether by proxy or in person, effectively removes
> that vote from the current count.  It does not make it count in the
> negative, under any circumstances.
            
As I don't have "Joske's" here at present, I will quote from "Mr
Chairman" by Marjorie Puregger. Abstention from voting p70-71.

"Members who abstain from voting do not escape all responsibility for
decisions made by the meeting. They are still bound by majority decisions
when subsequent action is taken. Although there is no legal compulsion to
vote, if the Constitution states that a resolution must be passed by a
certain percentage of those present, those who abstain from voting may
prevent the motion from being passed, and their action - or inaction - is
equivalent to a negative vote."
 

> However, if a motion requires a particular number of votes to pass, a
> goodly number of 'ABSTAIN' votes (and hence, not used in the count) may
> effectively block the passing of that motion.

> Note that Humbug endeavours to follow the Constitution (and implications
> thereof) that Humbug has set itself. 

A constitution to be beneficial to the members of any organisation must
contain clear and precise rules. Implication, together with assumption and
intent should never be considered when formulating constitutions. They
create ambiguous rules. Rules that are open to interperation are a major
cause of conflict.

A couple of examples of the flaws in HUMBUG's Constitution. OK, and
humorous, (no offence intended).

Finances.
 
 6. The Treasurer should be able to provide a statement regarding the
club's financial position on one weeks notice.
 
Your right he should, but if he doesn't ?

 7. A copy of the financial records (all or partial) of the club most be
made available to any member of the club should they request it........

Yeah, fine, which year, 2004. 


> The group has no legal existence, and as such, is not technically bound
>by Company Law.

The group may have no legal existance, but the executive does.

and

Company law is irrelevant to unincorporated associations

and

Company meetings are regulated partly by the various Companies Acts and
partly by the Companies own Articles of Association.

and

HUMBUG meetings are not regulated by Company Law, because HUMBUG is not a
company. 

Regards,
Rob Unsworth.


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.