The usual practice of CAV if Rule Changes are not sent in within a month of
the meeting is to require that the Rule changes be done again.

It may be different under the new Act but I know of cases where this has




[] On Behalf Of Tony Souter
Sent: Saturday, 25 January 2014 4:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter
Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Minutes of committee meetings and other queries


Dear members


Since under the chapter's rules I'm still a member of WMAU until 30 June—at
which time no membership will be revewable for anyone under the rules, I'm
sorry to say—may I ask whether the minutes of today's "committee" meeting
will be posted promptly, unlike last time?


Looking at the minutes of the most recent meeting (by the way, pretty short
on links for members to navigate to referents), I see 12 red "ACTION"
statements; only one of them is followed by a note that the action was


ACTION: Steven to advise Adam.

(Update: Actioned 25 November - committee members CC'd on email.) Although
it doesn't say whether the action succeeded in terms of the resolution.



A sample of the other 11 is below, together with a few other queries.




*ACTION: All to update COI register.  


ction=history> &action=history




*Update of records with CAV and the ACNC

§  Steven advised that everyone had sent through the necessary details.
Email issues have hampered the ACNC matter; Steven is sending Andrew the
form via express post.

§  The rule changes have not been sent to CAV from the SGM. If it goes
beyond 26 November, the lodgment fee increases from $75.20 to $160.50.

§  ACTION: Steven to email Andrew the form; Andrew to file it with CAV on


Even if the rule changes were sent to CAV by 26 November, saving the chapter
half the fee, it ignores the fact that the law (not the rules, the law) was
breached by not communicating the change within a month of the SGM that
approved the changes. I believe there's a fine for that breach, but would
need to check the Act to confirm this.




*A7 Past resolutions

§  ACTION: Andrew to sort out past resolutions for posting to the public


This cake looks worryingly half-baked:


"(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)"





*C4 Linkage project 

"there are questions as to its fit with our Statement of Purpose"—I don't
see an argument anywhere supporting this claim. Like the CAV's answers to
questions by one committee member about compliance, the answers depend on
how those questions are framed. Presumably the previous committee thought
the project fit with the SoP.

"The current spending is authorised by a resolution of the previous
committee, but we have the option to rescind this." But one of the problems
in squibbing on this funding is that the chapter signed a contract with the
other parties. Why sign a binding contract if you're going to flush it down
the pan in the hope you won't be sued, even if suing is unlikely? It's a
pretty bad smell for the chapter's reputation at the very least. Who
(including the WMF) would sign a contract with WMAU after that?

This sits oddly with a generally loose approach to spending, without clear
signs of improving the performance of the chapter:


I see proposals to move from a free email system to one that costs $50 a
year per person ($50? really?), and that the discourse on the site is so
sensitive that a much more expensive non-shared option is being considered.
Since the site remains a ghost town, I can't see the purpose in bumping up
expenditure on it by one cent. 


Even snail-mail looks like incurring more costs (redirect fee, etc). May I
ask why a mail box is used in the first place? If someone has to have the
key to it, why not mail to their home to save costs and expedite
communication? It's very unsuitable in a huge continent to assign one
location for a paid mailbox. 


May I ask why nearly a thousand dollars was set aside in the August meeting
for some online course "experiment" in ... what ... company board membership
skills? Really? I thought the election would have sorted out who was
competent to serve on the committee.


And is the Committee pursuing the idea of spending the grand some of $5,000
each quarter to ferry to, and accommodate and feed the committee, in a
different location in Australia? For the Sydney meeting last year, only one
member turned up. How is that "Fit to Purpose" or value for money?


Minutes of previous meeting:


"It was noted that most present were not at the meeting, but that as Graham
had prepared the minutes and Craig had agreed to them, an overall majority
of the previous committee could be judged in favour."


I'm not sure that's a logical assumption.



Finance report


Two red links for September and Octover reports. Where are they?




"The World War I event proceeded, but nobody on the committee was present,
so a report will be sought from the organiser for the next meeting."


No ACTION statement, so I can't imagine anything's been done on that one.




Just sayin', members.



Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to