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 didn’t 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, it’s been difficult to work out at times where the discussion has been heading:-> Noone could say we weren’t 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 con.

The discussion on club affiliation to the NatOrg was the hot topic of the week. While we are still debating this issue, here’s 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:
1.	More money for the NatOrg – if clubs were charged $1 per member and say there were 20 people in the club, that’s $20 we would otherwise not have.
2.	We would have a large immediate base of fans to work with.
3.	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:
1.	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 don’t pay to join NatOrg then why should they get voting rights? If they don’t get voting rights and yet pay, what benefit is there to them?
2.	It could potentially cause block voting at conventions for awards.
3.	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.
4.	If the NatOrg weren’t 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.
5.	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 answered.
6.	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.
7.	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 organisation’s membership without having to get club money involved.
8.	What would happen if a club member didn’t want to be a NatOrg member? How would we distinguish them within the clubs?

Other questions came out during the week too.
1.	If NatOrg held fundraisers what is the implications of “charging services to members? We discussed this and thought it wouldn’t be a problem to do fundraisers but we still have to get a legal eagle opinion on this.
2.	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 Organisation of
New Zealand.