🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pjw.709994561@lobo> pjw@lobo.canberra.edu.au (Peter Wishart) writes:
>In <121@quark.ansto.gov.au> frank@iris.ansto.gov.au (Frank Crawford) writes:
>
>>...  (Just as an aside, there is a
>>sub-committee working on it and I though Peter was on it?)
...
>
>Without meaning to cast aspersions on the sub-committee members (or the
>committee), it did cross my mind that a sub-committee is sometimes a
>good way for a committee to delay dealing with an issue.

It wasn't meant to be a delaying tactic, but I certainly haven't heard
anything much about it since it was set up.

>Yes, at the moment, COSUG =  "Canberra Open Systems Users Group".  Not
>all COSUG members like the name, but it is better than CUUG (which
>would follow the AUUG "logic" :-)

Yes, I see no reason to follow the naming convention "xUUG" for AUUG
chapters, anyway, often they don't really need a name.

>I did not see the chapter committee being as formal a body as the AUUG
>management committee.   So less formal election arrangements would
>apply.  This could well differ from chapter to chapter.  There could
>be some quite large chapters, but also some quite small ones.

True, but as you are probably well aware, a large committee often becomes
unworkable (look at parliament, anyone of them).  I agree that the chapter
committee shouldn't be too formal, but it is still responsible for the
chapter.  As an additional thought, you probably need something about
removing people from the committee (or were you going to take that
straight from AUUG's constitution?).  This is especially important for
the positions of President and Secretary/Treasurer.

>> ...	6) Membership of chapters by Institutional members is a much
>>more difficult issue (and not addressed in the original proposal).  One
>>possibility is that Institutional members may join one (two?) chapters
>>(the chapter receiving 25% of an individual membership) and if they wish
>>to join additional chapters then they need to pay an additional fee.
>
>hhhmmmmm ...  Institutional members pay $325 to join, and individuals
>pay $78 to join.  2 times 25% of $78  = $39.  So the chapters are
>getting up to 12% of the institutional membership fees and at least 25%
>of the individual memberships.  The membership report of 1/8/91 showed
>227 institutional members and 378 individuals.  By my back of a
>postcard calculations the total institutional membership fees is more
>than twice the total individual fees.  Yet the chapters would receive a
>lesser portion of the institutions funds.  Seems like we may have to
>think some more about the break up of institutional fees.

True, but the services that chapters provide to an institution should be
the same as for an individual, so it shouldn't cost any more.  Anyway a
slightly fairer position is for more of the institutional funds go into
the general chapter pool.

>> The other issue in funding is
>>the indirect costs.  Particularly the use of various AUUG services.
>>WAUUG is unlikely to use the secretariat much, whereas SWIGS would.  Is
>>this an issue that we should worry about?  Personally I think not
>>because it would be too difficult, but these costs would then be swept
>>into the general chapter bucket.
>
>I think the use of the Secretariat is something that could be montiored
>and managed by the management committee.  If the Secretariat feels
>overworked then I'm sure they will let us know about it :-)

Actually, here I was thinking more of the feelings of the individual
chapters.  e.g. "Sydney can spend more on XXX because they have all
their mailouts done by the Secretariat, whereas Perth does them all
locally and has to pay out of their own funds."

It can be monitored and adjusted, but someone will always think they are
losing out.  Anyway, it's not really an issue for the rules, more for
the Chapter Council.

>>	8) Rules governing the reporting probably need to be tighter.
>>Brief reports probably need to be submitted to the AUUG Management
>>committee at every meeting (both from the Chapter chairman (as a
>>separate item?) and the Secretary/Treasures (through the AUUG Treasurer)).
>
>I don't think we should force this task onto the chapters.  What
>problem is it solving?  If we make it too onerous, they just won't do it
>or they will spend time reporting to the management committee that could
>be more productively spent organising the chapter.

Certainly they shouldn't be perceived as being "onerous", but on the
other hand the AUUG Management Committee needs to be aware of what is
going on and try to head off any trouble.  As I see it the reports
should be pretty informal, i.e. some E-mail saying "we've done X, Y and
Z in the last 2 months and plan to do A next month".  The financial side
would be just as brief.  These reports are the type of thing that should
be given at the Chapter Committee meetings anyway (hmmm, that might be
how to do it, a copy of the minutes of Chapter meetings have to be given
to the next AUUG Management Committee meeting, for information only).

>>...  I agree with the principles you state, however, they will
>>strongly disadvantage WAUUG (particularly regarding voting rights).
>>I think this item needs much further discussion.
>
>Yet, if we can have a chapter run by people who are not AUUG members
>is it really an AUUG chapter?

That is where WAUUG is a problem.  Despite being accepted as a chapter
it is really an Affiliate Organisation, and we might have change their
status (after discussion with them) if we want to proceed with this type
of principle.

Given that, there probably needs to be some statement on how to windup a
chapter (both voluntarily and involuntarily), although it may need
constitutional changes.  I would guess it needs to be something like a
majority of votes from all chapter members (but not chapter affiliates).

>Peter

								Frank