No subject

SGM is to submit the proposed constitution changes for a vote.", it is 
indicated that a single vote will be taken, to replace the constitution 
with the proposed amended constitution, version 6, as opposed to voting 
on single, separate amendments.

Is that correct? This is significant, as it has significantly different 
effects. For example, if the constitution changes are to be voted on as 
a whole, a voter then has to decide which is of greater importance; 
voting against changes to which the voter is opposed, or, voting for 
changes that the voter supports. It is like the "referendum as to 
whether Australia should become a republic", in which voters were given 
a simple choice - either the prime minister would be given the powers of 
a supreme dictator (able to sack the president, with no recourse 
against that decision), or no republic. So, people rejected that model, 
and were denied Australia becoming a republic, as Australia did not want 
to become an authoritarian dicatorship.

Similarly, in this case, if a person is opposed to the "Honorary Life 
Membership (HLM) class of membership (which, as it appears, does NOT yet 
exist, but requires approval of an SGM, for that class of membership to 
be created), but wants the use of online voting, and use of email for 
official correspondence, to be formalised in the cosntitution, a voter 
may be coerced into voting for the HLM clas of membership, to bring in 
the other changes, or, have to reject the advancement of LA via the use 
of email and online voting, through voting against the HLM class of 
membership.

I strongly suggest that this issue needs to be explicitly clarified; 
whether the voting will be on the individual changes to the 
constitution, and, whether that will be on 17 changes, or 26 changes, 
as mentioned above, or, for the replacement of the whole constitution, 
with the proposed amended constitution v6, as mentioned above, which 
is the version as specified by the formal notices of the SGM, as given 
above. 

Whilst some on the list have apparently nothing but contempt for me and 
my views, due to personal dislike of me, and due to intolerance of 
opinions that differ from their own opinions, from my experience of 
notices of AGM's and SGM's, both of university student guilds, and of 
onther incorporated non-profit organisations (hence, incorporated 
organisations of varying sizes, from tens to thousands of members), the 
usual reuirements for motions at SGM's and AGM's, especially where the 
constitution is to be amended, require all motions to be put to an 
SGM/AGM, to be explicitly stated, with the names of the mover and 
seconder,  and included in the notices of the SGM's/AGM's, with adequate 
notice, so that the members can consider the ramifications of the 
motions, including, as in this case, the differences between proposing 
separate amendements to the constitution, voted on separately, and, a 
single propsed relacement of the constitution, voted on via a single 
vote, as I have mentioned above.

-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
  Chapter 28 of 
  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
  A Trilogy In Four Parts",
  written by Douglas Adams, 
  published by Pan Books, 1992 
....................................................