2006-07 board of rckl diraja named - Rotary Club of Kuala Lumpur ...
2006-07 board of rckl diraja named - Rotary Club of Kuala Lumpur ...
2006-07 board of rckl diraja named - Rotary Club of Kuala Lumpur ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Wednesday, 4th January <strong>2006</strong><br />
Issue 23 - 2005/06 Page 4<br />
THE 50% LUNCH PRE-COLLECTION RULE<br />
Voted at the <strong>Club</strong> AGM on 28th December 2005<br />
To start <strong>of</strong>f with, Hon. Sec. Freddy announced that the <strong>Club</strong><br />
was fortunate to have sufficient members in attendance at the<br />
AGM for quorum to be reached.<br />
Then we continued with a most exciting and rather<br />
controversial topic – the “lunch pre-collection rule <strong>of</strong> 50%”. In<br />
spirit, it appeared that all members present were prepared to<br />
support the rule. However, Rtn Louis raised some pertinent<br />
concerns regarding the mechanisms involved in deciding on<br />
the quantum, collecting and accounting for the pre-payment.<br />
are many complexities implied by the proposed rule which are<br />
unanswered if the Board does not verbalize its mechanics.<br />
PP Kanesalingam also stood up to agree that it seemed<br />
difficult to vote when clarity was not given on the matter. At<br />
that juncture, Hon.Sec. Freddy noted that the floor had 3<br />
lawyers speaking who seemed to be at odds with each other.<br />
This caused a great deal <strong>of</strong> mirth and somewhat distracted<br />
from the issue at hand.<br />
Rtn Louis asking for details <strong>of</strong> implementing the<br />
proposed rule<br />
Rtn Louis animatedly raising his concerns on the 50%<br />
quantum<br />
Rtn Louis was uncomfortable to vote on something as<br />
important as this proposed rule without having the current<br />
Board communicate the mechanics <strong>of</strong> implementation.<br />
Hon.Sec. Freddy replied that the Board had decided that it<br />
was best to ask for members’ approval before planning the<br />
structures for implementation. The logic was that if members<br />
did not approve, then why waste time to plan for its<br />
implementation. However Rtn Louis made the point that there<br />
Rtn Louis also challenged the logic <strong>of</strong> why 50% would be precollected.<br />
Given RI attendance guidelines, a member could<br />
attend only 30% <strong>of</strong> his own <strong>Club</strong>’s meetings and make up the<br />
balance to meet minimum attendance needs. Hence, why not<br />
30% pre-collected instead <strong>of</strong> the proposed 50%? This query<br />
did not receive a clear response.<br />
Finally the floor voted and the majority carried the vote to<br />
agree on allowing this new rule to pass. The Board then<br />
PP Kanes making his point about the need for clarity<br />
Rtn C ham Mew ran thru’ the accounts for 2004-05<br />
Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Rotary</strong> C lub <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kuala</strong> <strong>Lumpur</strong> DiRaja