🚀 go-pugleaf

In <glenn.710044096@chuditch> glenn@cs.uwa.oz.au (Glenn Huxtable) writes:

>WAUG is a chapter under the current rules. It is likely that it cannot be
>a chapter under any (reasonable) new chapter rules. WAUG's impending
>incorporation will make it a legal entity in it's own right which will make it
>impossible for WAUG to be a chapter of AUUG.

Did you forget an "IMHO" in there, perchance?

>The real reason that we are more like an affiliate than a chapter is that we
>have (or will have) a legal existance in our own right and that existance has
>no formal responsibility to AUUG.

Not unless it's agreed under the rules of the association.

Also, any ten AUUG members could petition AUUG to form a
chapter. They do not even have to be members of the
association or even if they are, they do not have to be
elected committee. It's clearly wrong for AUUG to accept the
association which the petitioners ostensibly represent as a
chapter purely on petition. It's a difficult situation for
all concerned. Such things are not insurmountable.

>Unfortunately, I think much of Bernie's position on chapters (as stated in 
>previous postings) assumes that AUUG chapters are like WAUG and that we can
>go on being an AUUG chapter and that AUUG chapters can go on being like
>WAUG (somehow seperate and autonomous while still being part of the whole
>warm fuzzy feeling). I don't think this is viable.

I can see two diverse implementations of chapters; the first
(apparently what everybody else is talking about) is that of
completely dependent entities, relying largely on AUUG for
direction and funding. The second is that of a largely
independent association, which shares the aims of AUUG, and
may, or may not be a legal entity in its own right.

There are clear distinctions which arise between the two,
and within the scope of current AUUG rules, I see the best
fit as being that of Chapter and Affiliate respectively.
In some respects though, the current rules do not go far
enough in defining the roles of the two and making the
distinction between them. This fuzziness is probably why
WAUG is now a Chapter, and not an Affiliate.

I do not conceal my preference for autonomous, independent
associations which can support themselves, but cooperate
with similar associations for mutual benefit. I believe that
such an environment can best support the membership and
provide value for money.

It is however much harder for an association to become an
affiliate than a chapter, and without exercising semantics
too much, we must consider what "forming a chapter" really
means. Does it mean creating one out of the blue, or can it
mean mutation of an existing association.

If it's the latter, then no association can become a chapter
without first dissolving, a painful exercise if one is
incorporated, and even difficult if not incorporated. (e.g.
what about membership fees paid to the association prior to
dissolving? What happens to cash at the bank?)

Even when chapters do get formed out of the blue, where does
the legal responsibility for them rest?

If the chapter does not legally exist, then AUUG must accept
all responsibility and the elected chapter committee are
effectively puppets. AUUG chapters which exist under such
circumstances do not distribute responsibility to the
chapters. If the responsibility is not distributed, then
chapters are no more than a fascade.

What would the chapters be doing? If they hold meetings or
organize events independently of AUUG, where do they legally
stand compared to those meetings or events under the
umbrella of AUUG but still organized by the chapters?

The distinction is clouded even more by the existence of
chapters as sub-entities of AUUG, so where exactly does one
draw the line?

It's trivial to conceive a hypothetical situation where say
a chapter holds a function and one of the members gets drunk
and is flattened by a tram on the way home. The relevant
government organization then takes legal action against
AUUG, the incorporated body, to recover lost revenue.
Ultimately, that's where the buck stops (IMHO), even if AUUG
had no prior knowledge of the function.

The only way in which I can see substantial(*) chapters
being "useful" is if they are able to accept responsibilty
for their own activities. Unless there are substantial
changes to AUUG rules that division of responsibility is not
possible.

(*) "substantial" meaning large membership.

It's up to AUUG Committee to evaluate risks and benefits
(probably on a case-by-case basis); and to define formally,
the functions and operation of chapters. [ I'm aware of a
sub-committee to do the latter. ]

AUUG must also recognize that chapters can be formed quite
easily, and AUUG cannot refuse (IMHO) the formation of a
chapter simply because another already exists in the same
city. (We could have one chapter per member. ;-))

-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355