Meeting_talk: 2012 AGM
Some things that need to be done before the AGM.
- Audited financial statement for 2010–11.
- Rule amendments (if any)
- Voting system decided and implemented
- Detailed minutes of the last AGM
- Financial statement for 2011–12
Some things that should be done before the AGM
- Audit of financial statement for 2011–12
Audited financial statement 2011–12
Note that an audited financial statement for 2010–11 will be presented at this AGM.
We will have a financial statement for 2011–12 prepared soon. However the audit of the financial statement for 2011–12 hasn't started yet, and could take some time which means that date of the AGM needs to be set as late as possible in order to ensure the Audit is completed.
It is not unusual for members to demand that an audited financial statement for the previous year be presented at the AGM, so I would like members to indicate whether or not they feel this is necessary. John Vandenberg 15:35, 21 August 2012 (EST)
I'd certainly like a financial statement (I'm probably less concerned about whether or not it is audited -- but we have to do that anyway as an incorporated association, I presume). Kerry Raymond 08:15, 23 August 2012 (EST)
- We submitted an unaudited financial statement for 2010-11 at the 2011 AGM. I dont think it is mandatory for the fin. statement to be audited, but I would love a more authoritative answer. The public officer has been in communications with CAV, and they are 'requesting' that we submit an audited 2011-12 financial statement to the members at the upcoming AGM. I am not sure how stridently they are 'requesting' it, and whether we have any recourse against strident requests of this kind. If it is mandatory, then we'll need to set the AGM at the latest possible date. John Vandenberg 17:04, 23 August 2012 (EST)
This was discussed at Meeting:Public (2012-09-02).
- I would like the audit done before the AGM, I think that's best practice. Even if it delays the AGM somewhat. --99of9 20:08, 2 September 2012 (EST)
This was discussed at Meeting:Public_(2012-10-07) and a date of 25 November proposed.
- I can confirm that at this stage the audit for the 2011 figures has been completed and will be presented at the AGM. The audit for the 2012 figures is currently in process. I would like to have the 2012 figures ready in time to present at the AGM as well, but we are not legally required to present audited figures this year as our revenues were below the minimum threshold. Lankiveil 22:56, 15 November 2012 (EST).
I have added a paragraph about election software on the AGM page. A report was written after the last AGM. See Election Report - 2011-2012 WMAU Committee Nominations and Voting. We need to make a decision on this quickly. I have put election software on the Agenda for the 21 October committee meeting; any software needs to have been published before then. John Vandenberg 21:27, 8 October 2012 (EST)
As per requiremnts User:Gnangarra/Proposal:Increase committee size has been seconded and has recieved the required committee member approval to proceed. Can someone please move it to the proposal namespace and add it to the AGM agenda. Thank you Gnangarra 20:38, 25 October 2012 (EST)
Agenda Item 7
I was just reading through the agenda items and notice that the item at 7.2.1 Proposal:Increase committee size states that it can only be considered if 7.2 passes, that is incorrect. The proposal is only necessary if 7.1 fails which are the new model rules as they specify in Division 2 section 43.e upto 5 ordinary committee members(one more than I suggested) and in Division 4 section 62.2 defines a quorum as being the majority of the committee members holding office.(no officer bearer attendence required like I suggested) Gnangarra 23:45, 9 November 2012 (EST)
- That because the new model rules say that the number of ordinary members will be determined at each SGM. And it is _not_ possible to amend our rules unless we first bring them into compliance with the new act. Please confirm. John Vandenberg 04:44, 16 November 2012 (EST)
There has been discussion among the committee about which methods of communication should be available at the AGM.
- Should we continue to support both IRC and teleconferencing, or just one of these methods?
- If we support teleconferencing, should we use a phone line (with cost issues), Skype, or another freely available voice chat client? How easy would it be to record a call with Skype? What would the call quality be like? Would it be better to use alternative software (Ventrilo, Teamtalk, etc)?
- How do we have both teleconference and irc kept in sync? How do we ensure the relay continues to work both ways?All AGM centres need to hear each IRC comment. This will make the AGM longer.
Your thoughts on these issues would be appreciated. Graham87 17:58, 17 November 2012 (EST)
- I favour using both IRC and a telephone conference. In past years a volunteer has acted as a "translator", letting people on IRC know what's happening on the phone, and vice versa. I think this model worked well. We'd have to find a volunteer to do this, and from what I understand in the past it's been quite a frantic job that will pretty much occupy that person's time for the whole meeting.
- I've never recorded calls using Skype, but if someone phones in using Skype and creates a recording of the meeting that would be useful. Lankiveil 18:54, 17 November 2012 (EST).
- Unfortunately recording Skype audio is best done with dedicated software rather than just picking up the speaker output on a computer recorder. Hard to find freeware for the Mac; I believe it's easier for PCs. Tony1 19:00, 17 November 2012 (EST)
It would be helpfull if the Committee could express a view of the proposed Rule changes. The first proposal to just accept the Model Rules is supeficially attractive as the easiest option, but, as we decided at the very beginning, it does not quite meet our needs. Electronic voting is probably just one point. Extending the size of the committee is probably another. So, at some time, we are going to have to move away from the model rules. Since we have 12 months to comply with the new model rules, there seems little point in adopting them now. This moves us to Proposal:Rule amendments for new Act compliance. It is not clear to me that this is expressed in sufficient detail with everything given sufficient notice to be decided at the AGM. If this is the case, we can only accept it in general terms, along with, possibly, accepting in general terms the increase in size of the committee, and the proposal about terminating membership. The whole lot would then have to be be presented to a Special General Meeting as a complete new set of rules that comply with the new Act. It could be done arounf March next year. That is what I support. --Bduke 21:50, 18 November 2012 (EST)
- I more or less concur with your view here Brian. At this stage, I will not be voting in favour of proposal 7.1, as I don't think that the organisation has had time to properly consider the ramifications of the new rules and how they will apply to our organisation. I will not be voting in favour of 7.2, because as you say, we have a year to get into compliance, and the changes presented do not solve any problems. I am in favour of 7.2.1, as I think our experience this year has been that six people is not enough when people drop out or lose contact, and I'm not sure it is listed that 7.2 needs to pass first.
- I agree that holding an SGM to transition to the new model rules halfway through the term, after they have been properly considered and changes made where necessary, is probably the way to do. Lankiveil 23:51, 19 November 2012 (EST).