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

[Brent Wesley]

[ 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 ]

Andrae Muys wrote:

> Just in case anyone here dosn't know what a quorum is:
>
> A Quorum is the minimum number of people who have to turn up to an
> AGM/SGM for you to be allowed to hold a vote on an motion.  Quorum
> dosn't have anything to do with how many votes you need for a motion to
> pass.  Or for that matter, who can vote, what things need votes, how to
> conduct voting, or anything like that.  Just how many people have to
> turn up for any decisions made at the meeting to count.
>
> Now the problem Humbug is facing is that while the club was smaller the
> 1/3 quorum required at the moment was about 80% of the clubs *active*
> membership, and so getting quorum wasn't all that hard.  However as the
> club has got bigger, the number of "inactive" members has grown and so
> quorum has slowly approched 100% of active members.  If we don't reduce
> quorum before the it grows above 100% we will find ourselves unable to
> hold the SGM required to fix the problem!
>
> So I most definately agree with Willie, I know that the importance of
> reducing quorum requirements was being discussed before the AGM, so it's
> not some new unforseen surprise.  In fact when the quorum was originally
> set back in 1996 a number of members were concerned at the large quorum
> for exactly this reason.  At the time it was considered that a larger
> quorum was appropriate for the smaller club, but recognised that as the
> club grew it would have to be reconsidered.
>
> So the question that needs to be asked is, what should the new quorum
> be?  My preference is to keep it at 1/3 the membership but to add a cap
> to the quorum clause in the constitution.
>
> Willie is suggesting 3*exec+1=16 as a cap, I think I would prefer
> something a little higher (~21 or so).  I'm curious if anyone else has
> any preferences?  If we can settle on a single figure on the list, that
> would be good, if we can't then I would suggest we just do a
> preferential vote at the SGM.  Either way I would appreciate it if the
> President could call the SGM *soon* or we will hit christmas and it will
> be Jan/Feb before we can get this settled.
>

I agree. This is a problem in a nutshell. We simply need to agree on a formula to
calculate the minimum number of financial members that is required to vote on
motion at an SGM.

Currently the 2 proposed formula are :
    3 X Executive + 1  (16)
    4 X Executive + 1  (21)

I will call a SGM in next day or so.  What I would like it for people to email me
on their preference out of the above or any formula you may feel is appropriate.
It is clear that we have mixed emotions on this matter and I think the only way
we will resolve this matter is by taking the 3 most popular preferences and
voting on them in a SGM.

--
Brent Wesley
Systems Programmer
Scanning Systems (Aust.)
http://www.scanningsystems.com.au
PH: 07 3809 3333  FAX: 3809 3335                     http://www.humbug.org.au



--
* 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'.