NatOrg Discussion Week 2: June 18-25
This week the discussion focused on the
NationalBodyProposal and after some rewording we agreed that points 1 & 2
were generally fine, although they may need a little revision in the future.
The issue of the make-up of the board was
discussed. These were:
- whether there should be representation from the South Island in
some form, or whether representation from either large or small SF clubs
around the country such as Dr Who Fan Club (which has around 150 members)
should be considered as well. It was discussed that we could give board
members an area of responsibility each eg. South Island, Trek Fans etc.
- whether board members should hold their positions for 2 or more
years so they are able to come to grips with the NatOrg and whether the
past president should also reside on the board as a committee member to
facilitate smooth transition between committees. But we suggested limiting
the term of office people held.
- Suggestions about the financial year of NatOrg was made with
current dates being October 31 to November 1. Someone suggested July 1 to
June 30 as it a distance from public holidays and would generally be after
the con for that year (unless a con was held at Labour Weekend). This is
still being discussed.
We also talked about what happens if a bid
for a NatCon chooses not to be a member of the NatOrg. There would be no
financial support from the NatOrg but would they still get the NatCon title?
Generally we believed that if the NatCon bid had not fulfilled the requirements
of the NatOrg or didnít want to, they could not use the NatCon title but could
still hold their con anyway. It was suggested that a board member be seconded
onto the NatOrg Con Com to assist. We are still discussing this.
We have now moved on to the thorny issue of
membership and how that can best be defined. With more than 250 posts on this
subject, itís been difficult to work out at times where the discussion has been
heading:-> Noone could say we werenít passionate about this point.† Several issues have been raised with regard
to individuals, clubs, con memberships etc. These are summarised below.
- Membership of the NatOrg†
for indvididuals could be administrated as part of the NatCon fee
for any given year, with NatCon passing money on to NatOrg. This would
entitle any con attendee the right to vote at the AGM. How day membership
would be handled is still being discussed.
- People could be NatOrg members if they are pre-registered for
future cons. Ie the current convention and the next convention.
- Supporting membership could also have rights to vote as
non-attending NatOrg members.
- There could be a proviso for a NatOrg only membership for those
not wanting to involve themselves with any given convention.
- A suggestion that NatOrg memberships should be used to fund
NatOrg activities, say around $5-$10. Profits from cons would be just that
and not available for use for NatOrg activities. Membership prices could
look like this (as an example):
NatOrg only $10
Supporting Con $20
Full Con if NatOrg $70
Full Con + NatOrg $80
- There is concern however over the length of time the membership
would last if there are tangible benefits such as newsletters etc. Would
it be con to con if they were held at different times of the year? The
current view is that membership will expire at the beginning of the next
The discussion on club affiliation to the
NatOrg was the hot topic of the week. While we are still debating this issue,
hereís the story to date. Norman suggested that clubs be involved in the NatOrg
for information sharing, and other benefits (which would come later).
- There were several good reasons why the NatOrg should affiliate
clubs. They were:
- More money for the NatOrg Ė if clubs were charged $1 per
member and say there were 20 people in the club, thatís $20 we would
otherwise not have.
- We would have a large immediate base of fans to work with.
- Simpler administration for NatOrg if all club members are
automatically NatOrg members. Clubs could administrate and NatOrg collect
the money. This is offset by point 1 below.
- There was major concern about Clubs being affiliated to the
NatOrg for a number of reasons:
- People would effectively have paid twice or three times if
they joined at the NatCon and through their club (clubs if in more than
one). If clubs donít pay to join NatOrg then why should they get voting
rights? If they donít get voting rights and yet pay, what benefit is
there to them?
- It could potentially cause block voting at conventions for
- There is currently nothing tangible that the NatOrg could give
clubs other than information to its members which could be given through
email and website information.
- If the NatOrg werenít charging clubs to be involved (as
members of NatCons were already paying for the organisation) then there
could be a bias towards clubs and not individuals which would be to the
detriment of the NatOrg.
- Club representation on the NatOrg committee was also a
problem. How would we decide which clubs got representation, would each
one have a member on the board? It was generally agreed that there would
be a representative on the board looking out for club interests. Clubs
could still put forward a candidate to be voted on to the NatOrg
committee at AGM time.
Should more than
two members of any one club sit on the committee at any one time? Should
current Con Com members be allowed on the committee? Questions still to be
- There was also concern that if clubs were affiliated to the
NatOrg too closely in legal terms then if one should fall over, it could
conceivably pull the other with it.
- Requiring clubs to join the NatOrg and pay a membership fee
would discuurage clubs from joining. Someone suggested that we could get
clubs to communicate the benefits of NatOrg to their members thereby
increasing the organisationís membership without having to get club money
- What would happen if a club member didnít want to be a NatOrg
member? How would we distinguish them within the clubs?
Other questions came out during the week too.
- If NatOrg held fundraisers what is the implications of
ďcharging services to members? We discussed this and thought it wouldnít
be a problem to do fundraisers but we still have to get a legal eagle
opinion on this.
- Should the NatOrg be called N.O.R.M.A.N (the National
Organisation for Recruiting More Active Neofen, or† P.A.U.L.S.C.O.O.N.Z. (Promotion,
Awards, Universal Liaison, and Scientifiction Convention Overseeing