<I>

  <&>Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English Version One</&>
  <&>Copyright 1998 School of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies</&>
  <&>Victoria University of Wellington</&>

  <&>side one</&>
  <&>1:09</&>
  

  <WSC#DGZ023:0005:AP>
      welcome to the annual general meeting of serac for nineteen
      ninety three

  <WSC#DGZ023:0010:AP>
      we have collected some apologies and i'll ask the secretary to
      read them out please

  <WSC#DGZ023:0015:BU>
      john and kath thompson <O>voc</O> by letter and the other ones
      i've just collected

  <WSC#DGZ023:0020:BU>
      the willis family chris witcliffe murray hymes tom smith sue
      goodman jim and mary coates david cameron benny myers les and
      allan trudgill and catherine brown

  <WSC#DGZ023:0025:AP>
      <{><[>any others</[>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0030:X3>
      <[>martin gordon?</[></{>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0035:BU>
      martin gordon <O>clears throat</O>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0040:AP>
      any other apologies to record please <,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0045:AP>
      would someone like to move that the apologies be accepted

  <WSC#DGZ023:0050:BU>
      <?>so moved</?>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0055:AP>
      christian gary <latch>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0060:BU>
      gary

  <WSC#DGZ023:0065:AP>
      seconder <,,><&>4</&> <&>2:00</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0070:BU>
      martin burns <,,><&>6</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0075:AP>
      the minutes of the twenty fourth annual general meeting of serac
      held on the twelfth of may nineteen ninety two <,,><&>3</&> were
      circulated shortly after that meeting <,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0080:AP>
      er somebody who was AT that meeting could you please move that
      those minutes were a true and accurate record of that meeting

  <WSC#DGZ023:0085:AP>
      thanks jonathan buller

  <WSC#DGZ023:0090:AP>
      seconded mike carruthers <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0095:AP>
      any matters arising from those minutes? <,,><&>4</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0100:AP>
      no?

  <WSC#DGZ023:0105:AP>
      i'll move on to my president's report which has been circulated
      much more <&>3:00</&> recently and that having BEEN circulated
      so recently i will not read it TO you but i will move from the
      chair that the <.>rep</.> president's report for the nineteen
      ninety three annual general meeting be accepted

  <WSC#DGZ023:0110:AP>
      <?>can</?> i have a seconder please <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0115:AP>
      thank you norman <,,><&>7</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0120:AP>
      if there are any particular matters that anyone wishes to raise
      in relation TO the president's report that don't appear to <,>
      be capable of discussion later or in general business you might
      like to raise them now <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0125:AP>
      <?>any matters?</?> <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0130:AP>
      at this point we should have moved on to the treasurer's report
      but since er the treasurer hasn't <.>appeared</.> hasn't made it
      yet er we'll <.>no</.> move on to the notices of motion in
      <&>4:00</&> particular into the constitutional amendments
      <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0135:AP>
      these have been circulated as well

  <WSC#DGZ023:0140:AP>
      they were required to be sent to you with er with the er notices
      of the meeting <?>so as</?> to give you the required time to
      consider them <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0145:AP>
      you'll find them on the yellow sheets that you have and there
      are four of them <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0150:AP>
      since <.>my</.> I have moved the first one i'll um i'll talk to
      that one briefly

  <WSC#DGZ023:0155:AP>
      the first constitutional amendment that has been suggested that
      has <.>moved</.> has been moved by myself and seconded by grant
      hayes who is not here so we will have <.>to</.> if he doesn't
      come i'll have to find another seconder

  <WSC#DGZ023:0160:AP>
      this is <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0165:AP>
      this is <.>your</.> your motion being <?>moved here</?> <O>laughter</O>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0170:X1>
      <?>i couldn't find a park anywhere</?>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0175:AP>
      this is <.>moved</.> we move that clause four c of <&>5:00</&>
      the constitution be amended by deleting all of the words after
      excluding taxes so that clause four c will read <reads>the
      joining fees and levies for a senior membership shall be
      determined by the committee</reads>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0180:AP>
      and as a corollary to that <reads>that in the case of any member
      resigning from the club prior to thirty one december nineteen
      ninety three the committee have the discretion to refund all or
      part of the building levy which would have been refundable
      pursuing to clause four c one of the constitution</reads>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0185:AP>
      as the note to the amendment sets out we believe it's
      inappropriate for members to claim a refund <unclear>word</unclear>
      to the cost of the clubs lodges

  <WSC#DGZ023:0190:AP>
      the essence of the payment as a contribution to the club's funds
      has long been recognised in that building levies have been shown
      in the club's accounts as an ASSET albeit inaccurately in view
      of the terms of the present clause four c one which in fact
      <&>6:00</&> requires that payment to be able to be refunded to
      the member and it is thus a liability <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0195:AP>
      it is therefore being proposed that the building levy no longer
      be refundable so that those sums can accurately been <.>showing</.>
      be shown in the company's <.>accou</.> in the club's accounts as
      an asset

  <WSC#DGZ023:0200:AP>
      however <.>in</.> because that is somewhat er sudden and in
      order to provide a lead in time for those existing members who
      may feel that this is absolutely unacceptable and would wish to
      resign rather than LOSE the possibility of a refund the second
      motion provides for the amendment to take effect as from one
      january nineteen ninety four

  <WSC#DGZ023:0205:AP>
      is there any discussion to the motion please <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0210:X2>
      <.>i</.> i would like to um speak if i may

  <WSC#DGZ023:0215:X2>
      er <,> i <&>7:00</&> feel <.>against</.> <.>i</.> er against the
      motion

  <WSC#DGZ023:0220:X2>
      i don't er i don't really think it's appropriate in my opinion

  <WSC#DGZ023:0225:X2>
      it er reminds me rather of the last two governments we've had
      with their restructuring <,> where things are made er changes
      are made that actually apply to the past and that seems to be
      rather inappropriate that in a club of this nature people who
      join the club should find that the conditions under which they
      have joined are retrospectively er changed <.>in</.> in such a
      manner <,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0230:X2>
      er <.>i</.> i draw your attention to the fact that <.>i</.> i
      don't think that because it's been shown on the wrong side of
      the balance sheet is <.>anything</.> any justification for
      making this change <,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0235:X2>
      <.>i</.> nor do <.>i</.> i feel that there's any justification
      for a comment <&>8:00</&> that i've heard that the change should
      be made because it's difficult to find out which members have er
      the refund due to them and which because they joined as
      youngsters do not have their <,> um refund due to them <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0240:X2>
      so in brief i suggest that er <.>in</.> instead of making this
      change for those members ALL members it should only be made for
      those members who now join <,,> and i feel that er <,,> the
      spirit in which many members joined the club should be
      maintained

  <WSC#DGZ023:0245:X2>
      i don't think the amount of money is particularly large per
      member and i don't think the rather crass er requirement that
      they resign as a protest should have been brought forward
      <&>9:00</&> <,,><&>8</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0250:X3>
      any other <.>s</.> um people wishing to speak to the <unclear>word</unclear>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0255:??>
      i'd just like to confer with what martin said <,,><&>4</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0260:KC>
      i'd like to make a comment

  <WSC#DGZ023:0265:KC>
      i don't quite agree with all of the comments just made but at
      the same time it seems to me and it has always seemed to me that
      in fact the refundable <.>le</.> building levies have
      constituted in effect a longterm investment by members in the
      club and this is in part recognised that it is repaid um when
      they leave and the replacement levy is if you like collected
      from people who then join

  <WSC#DGZ023:0270:KC>
      um one option would be of course to make it so that the er
      person who had invested in the club were able to directly sell
      their membership to <&>10:00</&> a new member who might want to
      join

  <WSC#DGZ023:0275:KC>
      that would have the um disadvantage that the club would no
      longer have so much control as it now has over who joins and who
      doesn't <,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0280:KC>
      but it seems to me that would be probably a more <?>equitable</?>
      way of looking at it

  <WSC#DGZ023:0285:KC>
      incidentally i do agree it's on the wrong side of the balance
      sheet

  <WSC#DGZ023:0290:KC>
      it probably should be shown as a liability <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0295:AP>
      sorry i've missed your point as to what would be more equitable

  <WSC#DGZ023:0300:KC>
      well yes i mean my er

  <WSC#DGZ023:0305:KC>
      what we're saying well have said in the past is the club has the
      right to decide who can join and whether people get repaid
      rather than having it sold directly

  <WSC#DGZ023:0310:KC>
      why not <.>s</.> say that members can sell their membership to
      another person if they want to <,,><&>13</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0315:AP>
      <.>any</.> <latch>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0320:LD>
      the refundable building levy is a hundred and sixty five <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0325:AP>
      any other speakers?

  <WSC#DGZ023:0330:AP>
      ernie <&>11:00</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0335:TE>
      um i'm not sure if i missed a point but it seems to me that the
      only problem with the present arrangement is the mismatch
      between the reality as it is and as was intended by the
      constitution and the accounting method and i wonder whether
      we're adjusting the wrong side of the um mismatch

  <WSC#DGZ023:0340:TE>
      that whether we should perhaps simply look at the accounting
      method and from here on treat the er building levy as a
      liability and leave the constitution as it was

  <WSC#DGZ023:0345:LD>
      mm well we've actually done that anyway for this year's accounts
      but that's not the issue

  <WSC#DGZ023:0350:LD>
      the issue is that we have <,> <.>w</.> <.>w</.> what is <.>a</.>
      a relatively small amount per member a hundred and sixty five
      dollars that requires us to go through several sort of hoops

  <WSC#DGZ023:0355:LD>
      every time a member resigns we have to check whether that person
      paid one or not um

  <WSC#DGZ023:0360:LD>
      do they owe any money for any other reason um

  <WSC#DGZ023:0365:LD>
      have they requested a <&>12:00</&> refund

  <WSC#DGZ023:0370:LD>
      er <.>i</.> it's just <.>a</.> a lot of effort for a very small
      amount of money <,,>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0375:TE>
      i understand the membership list has the asterisk in one
      particular column to indicate those members who have inherited
      their membership <{><[>from junior membership</[>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0380:LD>
      <[><drawls>yes</drawls></[></{> but then again you have to <.>t</.>
      check that it hasn't got dropped off on one of the <.>print</.>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0385:LD>
      i mean you know it is an issue

  <WSC#DGZ023:0390:TE>
      yeah

  <WSC#DGZ023:0395:LD>
      quite an issue <latch>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0400:TE>
      oh yeah <O>laughs</O> <,,><&>5</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0405:TE>
      maybe we <.>should</.> using the word issue um <,> give to each
      member a certificate recognising their deposit <.>their</.>
      their refundable building levy and that's then THEIR
      responsibility to maintain the document <,,><&>8</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0410:LD>
      like a receipt

  <WSC#DGZ023:0415:TE>
      yes <,,><&>4</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0420:FS>
      i <.>think</.> <?>i mean</?> if i can <,> just add another
      <&>13:00</&> thing <.>i</.> <.>i</.>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0425:FS>
      it seems to me that there are problems um <.>o</.> of the sort
      that you suggest peter

  <WSC#DGZ023:0430:FS>
      um on the other hand having the building levy <.>i</.> in the
      form it DOES does enable the committee to get some of the money
      owing it BACK in the occasional case of the refuse to refund er
      the building levy

  <WSC#DGZ023:0435:FS>
      on the other hand the building levy is recognised in the
      constitution as always a refundable one

  <WSC#DGZ023:0440:FS>
      it is refundable AT the discretion of the committee

  <WSC#DGZ023:0445:FS>
      um it is not um on that point of view something which i would
      regard as a RIGHT of members or properly viewed really as an
      investment by the members and i must admit it seems to ME that
      certainly in the case of longterm members and perhaps not so
      much in the case of shortterm members that the first sentence of
      the explanatory note on this um <.>i</.> is actually the
      <&>14:00</&> appropriate one

  <WSC#DGZ023:0450:FS>
      that it's inappropriate for members to claim a refund of their
      contribution to the cost of the club's lodgings

  <WSC#DGZ023:0455:FS>
      we recognise um that we are providing an asset er

  <WSC#DGZ023:0460:FS>
      it is part of the membership obligation to contribute towards
      that asset

  <WSC#DGZ023:0465:FS>
      it's contributed through the building levy and it's contributed
      <&>pronounced as contitributed</&> through the annual
      subscription and on THAT ground um i've never seen any real
      reason why um we should be in the business of refunding er the
      building levy

  <WSC#DGZ023:0470:FS>
      it may be that we reach a compromise solution of the sort that
      martin initially suggested where we leave members with what they
      regard as their existing rights but for the future we do not
      have this levy

  <WSC#DGZ023:0475:FS>
      i mean peter's right in many ways it's actually a bloody
      nuisance from the point of view of the committee but i don't
      think that's the major consideration <?>in the motion</?>
      <&>15:00</&> <,,><&>9</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0480:AP>
      cameron

  <WSC#DGZ023:0485:GW>
      er yes madam <.>that's</.> that's i guess my view as well um of
      this matter <.>having</.>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0490:GW>
      i've been a member of the club for a long time and um in fact i
      think the membership was part of my marriage contract

  <WSC#DGZ023:0495:GW>
      emma got permission of the senior members of the club to er
      marry one of the er original members um

  <WSC#DGZ023:0500:GW>
      <.>i</.> <.>i</.> i'm bound to say i think i got a very good
      deal in both respects and er <O>clears throat</O> i've never
      considered er this particular er matter as a bit of money that
      <.>i've</.> like many others since that i'd ever see again

  <WSC#DGZ023:0505:GW>
      and so er <.>i</.> <.>i</.> i must say that i think that um
      those of us who have been in the club for some time have had a
      <&>16:00</&> wonderful deal fantastic and um i guess i'm
      indicating how <.>i</.> <.>i</.> i'd er see some of the other
      financial matters that are before the meeting tonight in saying
      that er i think the idea in fact is to build up and retain the
      club's finances for the inevitable costs that we see projected
      in the future and er i think this was <.>a</.> a totally
      painless and extremely appropriate way of er simply saying well
      okay let's er just <.>a</.> acknowledge this as an asset and
      let's also acknowledge that those of us who paid it er many
      years ago or not so many years ago have had really good value
      for it <,,><&>11</&>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0510:AP>
      sorry?

  <WSC#DGZ023:0515:HJ>
      i <?>just</?> want to say that er the hundred sixty five dollars
      <?>i think it</?> was <.>ori</.> was <&>17:00</&> originally a
      one hundred dollars it er <?>one point</?>

  <WSC#DGZ023:0520:LD>
      it DID increase at some stage

  <WSC#DGZ023:0525:TE>
      increased at some stage but it seems <.>if</.> <.>if</.> if the
      levy's continued it's likely to stay at the current level

  <WSC#DGZ023:0530:TE>
      <.>it's</.> it's very much in danger of becoming an artifact

  <WSC#DGZ023:0535:TE>
      i mean we raise it now but i can see if we don't do something
      about it tonight it's likely to be raised in five years time <.>or</.>
      <O>clears throat</O> rather frequently <.>in</.> <.>at</.> at a
      g ms for er er removal and i think er now's the time to just <.>s</.>
      rather painlessly cut it off and forget about it just as er the
      previous er two speakers have said <&>17:36</&>
</I>
