[AUUG-Talk]: Whither options for continuing AUUG

[steve jenkin]

Christopher Vance wrote on 20/1/08 1:33 PM:

> > You mean in the early '80s?  I think that's about when AUUG was
> > incorporated.
>   

Yes.  Why cannot AUUG go back to that structure, especially like LUG's
without membership fees?
People on the list have offered their services and resources. It should
be simple to register the name, trademark the logo & word, ....

> > I don't believe we can unincorporate, as the law appears to recognize
> > only dissolution. 
>   

I'm reading this ("I believe") as "We haven't gotten any legal advice".
Am I wrong there??


> > But do be aware that AUUG cannot pass assets with monetary value to an
> > unincorporated body.
>   

Based on what advice???
The constitution in section 33 says "to any fund, institution or
authority which, itself, is either a non profit company as defined by
Section 3(1) of the Income Tax Act 1986 or is exempt from income tax."

That doesn't say *incorporated* to me - just ATO registered non-profit
or "exempt from income tax".

BTW: section 33 (Dissolution) *specifically* doesn't mention any other
criteria for selecting a recipient org.
section 32 (Amalgamation) is very different: says similar/comparable aims.

These two sections should not be read together or confused. I think the
intent of the drafters is very clear.

Without specialist legal advice, I'm unsure if the funds could be rolled
over directly to any new structure [it takes time to gain/prove ATO
not-for-profit status]

It is certainly within the rules to give the funds to another body (say
LA) on the understanding (with enforceable assurances) that it would be
given back to a newly structured AUUG.


> >
> > If you desperately feel CAUUG ...
>   

Get over this & move on. I said last week I was done discussing CAUUG funds.
I specifically *didn't* mention it in this thread to avoid yet another
fruitless sidetrack...

> >
>   
>> >> * Does the Board intend to include a ballot on continuance options in
>> >> the final postal vote (confirming dissolution)?
>>     
> >
> > I believe so.
>   

Which leaves me confused.

First there was a 'NO' to other options, and lastly you'll ballot for
them...
My simple mind isn't putting that together.

I *won't* ask for clarification - it would only further confuse me &
waste list bandwidth.

[Anyone else who's confused as well - feel free to ask]


-- Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist. 0412 786 915
(+61 412 786 915) PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin