[Computerbank] Re: [CAI-committee] Re was Update from me - SA woes

[jennifairy <jennifairy@yahoo.com>]

I appreciate the work everyone is putting into thinking about all this, 
I for one am in overload due to Uni, but I just can't help thinking that 
I *really* wish we here in SA had ignored the whole CBVic thing like NSW 
seems to have done & just incorporated ourselves over a year ago when we 
had the impetus to do so. We here have waited SO LONG for the Aust-wide 
incorporation, thinking that we couldn't really do much here until that 
was acheived. Maybe that was wrong, but it seemed to be the thing to do 
at the time. It feels like we've been sitting on our hands while 
'someone/s' ( please dont think I dont appreciate your time & effort) 
organised the paperwork side of things so that we would all be better 
off.  Due to that (& other personal commitments like Uni etc) some of us 
are now looking at where our hands used to be & finding, well, something 
that looks like its been sat on for over a year :((. Not a pretty picture.
I am not writing this to throw *shit* at anyone, not even really 
complaining about how its turned out, I guess I'm just in a state of 
quiet bemusement. We spent our motivation on waiting for the benefits 
that were offered, which we never really got, & what WAS happening here 
in SA (& I am not speaking from anything but my own opinion) has been 
severely weakened as a result.  In retrospect we here in SA went down 
the wrong trouser-leg of time (made a crap decision).
Just letting you ppl know so that if you see bubbles on the surface 
where we used to be, you'll have some idea of what went down.

Kylie Davies (by way of romana < @timelady.com="">) wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
>While i feel some sense of responsibility for what is unfolding re
>structure and particularly SA viewpoints, I feel that it is my duty to
>resource people about becoming an incorporated organisation in your
>state as opposed to becoming an incorporated entity australia-wide.
>
>For SA (and Qld), who are small group's in comparison to other states,
>do you have enough people to form a functioning committee? What about
>groups who wanted to start up in rural towns, but didnt have the numbers
>to incorporate a body - wouldn't they be disadvantaged by the "all
>incorporate model"? It was for this reason, that the national entity
>idea was born. By Laws can be used to draw lines of accountability, not
>withstanding the liability of the committee as a whole.
>
>It is (sort of) fair to say if something terrible happens within
>Computerbank at the national level - all groups would cease to exist.
>Regardless of this - we all still need to work very hard to prevent this
>from happening. To anyone.
>
>It was decided to incorporate a national body at the Vic level - for
>protection of others whilst starting up, and yes at the time, individual
>incorporation was not the preferred way of doing things (although you
>could do something different if you wanted to) - but i thought this was
>generally agreed to. This is partly to protect image and also to reduce
>costs associated with running an incorporated association, and it was an
>attempt at limiting the liability of other people if the organisation
>didnt succeed. In this respect I mean something a little different to
>the current debate on liability. I mean our own personal liability for
>providing bad information to small groups of people. I for one would
>feel personally responsible if groups were sued. (read below as this
>point is reiterated).
>
>The structure that we have in place at this moment, is theoretically
>similar to state based incorps - except the liability issues are
>different. In any case, we did need to formalise a National entity, that
>one way or another, we are all a party too. This we have done - and by
>doing this to involve states - we have acheived a united vision.
>
>I can understand the frustration that SA, QLD and others may feel if the
>conference decides to go with the CBNSW proposal, however to incorporate
>at the state level is _now_ a simple process, and it would not take very
>long - nor would it involve copious amounts of model rules writing. It
>would involve a cost, that if structure needs changing - the National
>body - could pay. Policy adoption would be a simpler process - coming
>from the National steering entity to whom all would be members of.
>
>When this body becomes very big, because of all the regional
>incorporatons - we would have to look at ways of ensuring fair
>representation for all - because as committees increase in size they get
>less manageable (even more so where there are *lots* of strong
>personalities pushing different agendas). ...then there's the issues of
>applying for ABN's, workcover (when you employ), leases, signing
>contracts with the government or funding bodies.
>
>Under the model we are with at the moment, Regionals report to States
>and have representation on a State level committee. Regional issues,
>however, do need attention at the National level. (Maybe one regional
>representative for States on Nat committee?)
>
>Under the proposed model by NSW - how would this be structured, and what
>if a group wasn't able to incorporate, how would they be able to
>participate?
>
>I still firmly stand by my belief that a National body was needed. If
>the conference (where we are all together face to face) decides that
>should have separate incorporated bodies or even an optional
>incorporation - there still needs to be a structure to deal with it all.
>
>We, as people, are negligble to let others undertake the legal duties of
>incorporation lightly, by advising small groups to incorporate, just in
>order to prevent litigation upon ourselves. The legal duties of
>incorporated bodies, bodies wth ABN numbers and bodies with funding
>arrangements are huge. How do country branches surmount these issues on
>their own? Are we setting them up for immediate failure?
>
>At least, until a better way was proposed - the National model - with
>careful attention to policy and by-laws (which no one really seems to
>highlight as a core issue admidst this debate) would provide great
>protection for everyone, as well as the Computerbank vision of getting
>linux computers out to disadvantaged individuals, community groups and
>schools. A core component of this being linux advocacy and
>training/support.
>
>The benefits of a National Model - and a group acting as one - were many:
>
>The sponsorship arrangement of BP with Computerbank Australia wide - was
>what drove the National identity push. Branches under the National
>umbrella - are to get a portion of these monies for START UP purposes.
>For a similar regional development model (where we make seed funds
>available to regionals) we need greater sponsorship and do not have the
>capacity to develop these.
>
>With this in mind alternate strategies for regionals were proposed -
>that they could auspice with another organisation (for premises sakes)
>and operate under CAI as a regional node for their area. Rural people
>are very resourceful when it comes to finding places to operate - tight
>nit community structures are favorable to this. Transportation issues
>are somewhat overcome by networks of people having to travel (or truck
>in supplies) great distances from time to time. A national group could
>strike a sponsorship arrangement with a transport company or other options.
>
>There should be levels to which a community group would like to become
>involved - for instance, Mudgee may want to become a distribution and
>training centre, while Sydney could be the build centre that ships
>systems ready for configuration to Mudgee. In this way, metro's could
>ease storage issues by shipping systems to rural areas, using (at low or
>no cost) existing infrastructure for transport.
>
>Perhaps incorporation can be an optional thing - with a National
>structure able to deal with issues around liability and policy in a
>consistent manner for both groups by having a code of practice. In this
>way - regionals can start up without all the overheads, and state
>branches can operate with legal entity status before they incorporate
>themselves (another valid point for the national bodies existence - we
>still haven't got an NT branch or a Tasmanian branch!)
>
>I will be getting a law student (and Clayton Utz if possible) to provide
>some commentary about this, the law student is expert in the area of
>Trade Practices (as we are an ASIC registered bod - I believe we are
>bound to law's surrounding this - of course I am not sure how - or if
>the laws apply) and individual responsibility for things going "wrong"
>in body corporates. If this is the case, the extent of liability for
>incorps, can be pinpointed to an individual - and the overall protection
>is a fallacy. Of course this fallacy would be extended to an australia
>wide body too. But it gives more impetus to the individuals that are
>organisaing computerbanks to act within the law. It could also mean that
>the incorporated body could sue an individual for negligence, rather
>then having to fold.
>
>Dont forget we are on a development path that is unique and innovative,
>and we need to be flexible with our ideas and actions. We can adjust
>them and we can accomodate everyone. If we need to change then so be it.
>As much as I (we) would like to keep everyone happy all of the time - it
>doesnt always work out. :(
>
>At the moment I'm traversing the e-mail archives looking for what people
>had previously said on this topic. It's kind of fun looking back at what
>we were discussing. This forms part of the discussion paper on National
>Structure (NSW were doing one at the weekend and I'm doing mine all the
>time/now. :) More soon. Sorry if this is all over the place and quite
>long - but I kinda had a lot to say.
>
>I also found this great resource for starting out organisations - I
>recommend people taking a look at it at
>http://www.families.qld.gov.au/communitycare/developing_your_organisation/dev
>eloping_your_organisation_contents.html
>
>I'll be using a lot of this for policy development ideas. A lot of this
>is covered in the proposed policies that CBV were working on.
>
>Okay - end of my email, and hopefully I have contributed some food for
>thought. :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kylie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cai-committee mailing list
>cai-committee@lists.linux.org.au
>http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/cai-committee
>



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
computerbank mailing list
computerbank@lists.linux.org.au
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/computerbank