<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I hope that JF's draft dissolution motion is rejected or at a
minimum, redrafted.</p>
<p>It's not acceptable as it stands. <br>
</p>
<p>What effort must the committee go to to gather opinions?</p>
<p>What is the interpretation if only some members express an
opinion?</p>
<p>What is the interpretation if some members express an
unimplementable opinion</p>
<p>Unimplementable might need explaining:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Dissolution binds the committee to obey sub-clause 3<b> whatever
the motion passed by members</b> to direct the application of
surplus funds.</p>
<p>here's subclause 3 again:</p>
<div>The Committee must apply any remaining property or money:<br>
(a) directly for the Objects;<br>
(b) by transfer to any organisations for purposes the same as or
similar to UK-TUG.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Members expressed wishes will only be implementable if they
conform. <br>
</div>
<div> Does the recipient have purposes (Aims, Objects) the same as
or similar to UK-TUG. Is the transfer acceptable to the recipient?
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The committee, in carrying out dissolution, will have to
establish whether it is feasible and permissible to transfer
funds as directed by the members.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>jay</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>---------------<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/10/2021 15:44, Jonathan Fine
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALD=Yf9zpr1CKucQXKnmf-KbReLmc-Vw7shGLoJu=DoCq5KVjg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SUMMARY: I respond here to one aspect of Nicola Talbot's
thoughtful and helpful email, namely whether my draft
dissolution motion (1) is consistent with the constitution. I
argue that it is. I hope the discussion here helps us
understand the constitution better. (It certainly helped me.)</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Nicola Talbot wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
It makes sense to approach possible recipients before
dissolution. It can't be done afterwards as the motion to
dissolve must definitively state where the funds will go.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that it's preferable if possible to approach
possible recipients before dissolution. However, we now have
only 9 days before the deadline for motions. I don't regard
it as mandatory.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't agree with the interpretation of the constitution
in Nicola's second sentence. The relevant clause in the
constitution is:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. The members may pass a resolution before or at the
same time as the resolution to dissolve UK-TUG specifying
the MANNER [my emphasis] in which the Committee are to apply
the remaining property or assets of UK-TUG and the Committee
must comply with the resolution if it is consistent with
sub-clause 3 of this clause.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My draft motion (1) is: That UK-TUG's surplus assets be
distributed in proportion to the individually expressed
wishes of members (subject to these wishes promoting the
objects of UK-TUG).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The constitution allows the general meeting to pass a
resolution regarding the MANNER in which the committee is to
apply the surplus funds. I say that "distribution in
proportion to the individually expressed wishes of members"
is a MANNER of applying surplus funds. If so, then surely
that settles that the motion is consistent with the
constitution.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This statement might help. First-past-the-post and
single-transferable-vote are different MANNERs of electing a
representative in a single seat constituency.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By the way, the constitution allows the general meeting
to pass a bare dissolution resolution, without first passing
a MANNER resolution. In that case the committee gets to
choose, subject to sub-clause 3. So perhaps Nicola's
reasoning is based on a misapprehension.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By the way, sub-clause 3 reads:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Committee must apply any remaining property or money:<br>
(a) directly for the Objects;<br>
(b) by transfer to any organisations for purposes the same
as or similar to UK-TUG.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One final comment. After bare and no-manner dissolution
resolution, the committee if it wished COULD idistribute
according to individually expressed wishes. The only change
made by also passing my draft resolution (1) is that the
committee MUST distribute the surplus according to
individually expressed wishes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope this helps. I find the language precise once
understood (which might take some effort).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>with kind regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Email use <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jay@jjnr.uk">jay@jjnr.uk</a></pre>
</body>
</html>