Dear Andrew I am still a member because there was legally no secretary to receive my written resignation, as you correctly point out is required by Rule 6(1).
Let's fast reverse for a moment: Charles resigned in writing as secretary several days after Graham was, somehow, appointed to the position, presumably using the casual vacancy rule—but there was no vacancy, so the appointment was invalid. I pointed out the problems at the time and was ignored—the fact that I was ignored is quite explicit in the minutes of the meeting during which everyone decided to appoint themselves into different office-bearing positions. http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Meeting:Committee_(2013-03-17)#Committee_reshuffle While we're on this matter, "Action: Steven agreed to write up a formal re-shuffle motion, as per the email." – I see no evidence in subsequent minutes of such a a formal "re-shuffle motion". It's as simple as that. You say: "the committee will not be responding to your correspondence dated 25 January 2014"; but you have responded. The failure to address my specific points might prompt members to wonder about several critical issues. Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but I'm rather fussy about adherence to rules and laws. Kind regards Tony On 25/01/2014, at 8:11 PM, Andrew Owens <orderinchao...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > On 1 October 2013, you resigned your membership per Rule 6(1) of the > Association in writing, via a post to the chapter's lists. It is also on > record that this resignation was accepted at the time. As such, you are not a > member under the chapter's rules. > > As a consequence, the committee will not be responding to your correspondence > dated 25 January 2014, and notes only that it contains several > misunderstandings and errors of fact, some of which can be easily corrected > with material already on the record, including reports submitted to the last > AGM and the full text of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012. > > Regards > > Andrew Owens > Secretary > Wikimedia Australia > > > On 25 January 2014 13:17, Tony Souter <to...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > 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 taken: > > 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. > > Nope: > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Conflict_of_interest_policy&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 > Tuesday. > > 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 wiki. > > This cake looks worryingly half-baked: > > "(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)" > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&action=history > > > ______________ > > *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? > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal:Quarterly_board_meetings > ______________ > > 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. > > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaauemail@example.com > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l