Cause Meeting 9 may 2017 7pm


I would like a vote on a cause leader at 7pm the night of the AGM. It would be good to do it that night as it will allow integration with the new exec from the get go, with a leader who was voted in by the group.

I am going to be putting my hand up to lead the cause. And look forward to constantly improving the woodshop with all the awesome members.


The 8th of May is a Monday, is this the correct date? Or should it be Tuesday the 9th, when the AGM is?

Thanks for the correction. I have corrected it for the Tuesday date.

Has Josh stepped down as cause leader for the Woodshop? If not, then I don’t see how this can work.
Cause leaders are elected according to the same basic rule structure as the executive, which means they are replaced when they don’t want to do it any more or they have held the position for 12 months and at a properly called cause meeting someone else is voted in by the group.

Sorry, but I also agree with the call for a vote. Its not an unusual democratic principal for a motion of no confidence to be called. There has been ongoing tension and disagreement in that space for some time and its not being resolved, and I have noted the increased stress levels and anxiety that exists in the current state which has become really unhealthy. I think the opportunity for the group to affect some sort of change is in the interest of everyone involved.

Actually, this is not correct @buzz, there are no provisions in the Cause policy for voting for or removing a Cause leader. At this point no cause leader has been voted in so the position is not an elected one.

That being said, I recognize that there currently exists a not insignificant amount of discontent amongst members of the wood shop cause and I think the best way to move forward is to determine consensus by a vote.

Cause Rules:
Operation of a cause is bound by similar rules as the group as a whole. When in doubt, read our incorporation rules and follow them.

HSBNE incorporation rules state:

The management committee of the association may call a vote of the management committee at any time to remove a person from the management committee.

A management committee vote to remove a member of the management committee may only pass with a unanimous vote of the entire committee, minus one member.

Though there is nothing in the rules saying there can’t be a vice cause leader, secretary etc…

I’m confused, are you suggesting we vote on updating the category text? I’ll happily point it to the Wiki page for more information about the cause.

I know this sort of thing is never fun, but from my perspective at least its not about individual personalities as such, its a constant conflict of difference in approach and strategy. So assuming Josh is agreeable to it, is there any reason why the people that nominate cant have a few minutes in front of the group to talk about their respective thoughts on vision and strategy in that space (strictly no personal attacks or debating), and let it come down to a member vote, given that unlike before the position is now contested. That seems like a fair and responsible way to approach it.

It still comes down to:
A) Until Josh stands down; or
B) He is voted out by executive (management committee)
He is the cause leader.

So the first step would be asking for Josh to stand down to allow a vote to take place.

Isn’t this essentially the same as what I proposed above? Josh agrees to a vote, vote takes place?


According to we’ve actually been pretty liberal with the rules surrounding causes, so here’s a list of things I’ve found that most if not all causes are currently doing wrong or not doing:

1 - the wiki page for the causes not being up-to-date with current leader
2 - the wiki page for the causes not being up-to-date with info on the ( upcoming and recent ) class/s.
3 - a causes must run a minimum of “One unique class run per month”. yes, a published class, every month.
4 - “be responsible for … upkeep and appearance” of the cause/s dedicated area. yes, that means keeping it clean and cleaning it, and chasing up after those who mess it up.
5 - photograph/s on record with the exec of the cause in it’s “acceptable level of clean” state.
6 - monthly walkthrough by an exec to assess cleanliness is up to scratch.
7 - cause meetings need to have written agenda on the forum at least 5 days in-advance of scheduled meetings
8 - cause meetings need to have written attendance record, written votes, and written minutes for meetings. ( electronic and posted where whole membership can read them).

Which cause, if any can say they’ve done all of these right…?

Finally… Because the Cause rules say nothing at all about how the cause leader is chosen, but they do specifically say “Operation of a cause is bound by similar rules as the group as a whole. When in doubt, read our incorporation rules and follow them”, that means that the cause itself acts like a mini-hsbne except where the cause rules say otherwise. So, the “cause leader” is read as equivalent to word “executive” or “management committee” in this document, apart from their being only one of them, and the scope of document only applying to the cause, not the whole of hsbne: … so…
Section 21 allows for:

  • the cause leader to resign whenever they want;
  • the cause leader to be replaced if they miss 3 cause meetings without apology;
  • for the cause leader to be removed from office … given a full and fair opportunity to show why he or she should not be removed ( with up to 1 month to do so) , and then if 3/4 of the [cause] vote in favor of removing them ;
    Section 22 allows for:
  • any casual vacancy of a cause leader - the executive may appoint another member of the association to fill the vacancy

In consideration of the above I am calling for Josh to stand down so as to allow a vote for cause leader of the woodshop. Several people in the cause have indicated publicly and privately that this is what they would like . Its now up to Josh to respond to that and I guess we need to choose what happens next from there.

Especially considering he wasnt voted in to begin with.

If he really has the best interest of the cause as his main goal, the obvious choice would be to let the people vote.

By my readong of the rules, josh now has up to a month to "show cause " at a suitably called cause meeting, and the vote will require 75% of the entire cause to support it in order for josh to be forcibly replaced. Or josh may choose to step down at any time before or after then.

Personally, of like Josh to keep doing what he’s doing in the woodshop, I think he’s doing a great job.

But if there’s a member who thinks they can do the job better, and all the cause members agree that said person could actually do the job better, why should they not be able to vote that person in as their leader? If the roles don’t currently allow for that, I think they should. Same goes for any exec position really I think.

Edit: after more thorough reading, it does appear it is provided for, 3/4 majority vote seems legit

Meeting Notes:

Joshua Hogendorn
Brendan Halliday
Shane Frost
Shane Sugrue
David Seff
Jeremy Robinson
Karl Richardson
Meka Beecham
Wayne Bruce
Michael Kent
Sven Hanzka
Dylan Waring (Proxy)

Meeting opened at 19:15pm

Brendan explained that as there were no clear rules surrounding the election or removal of a cause leader that the executive board had decided this would be treated as a standard election, with a majority vote determining the cause leader.

Brendan requested that this vote be held as a secret ballot and distributed pens and ballots.

Both Joshua and Mick expressed their plans with regards to the cause leadership:

  • Josh indicated he would like to continue with the plans he had communicated on the forums and fielded queries about the Table Saw induction delay, advising that he would like to run several people through the induction tonight.
  • Mick indicated that he would put in place multiple 2iC (second-in-charge) members with a common vision and would like to have Table Saw inductions within the week and the extraction system installed within the month.

Brendan called for attending cause members to write who they were voting for discreetly and to hand them in.

Ballots were counted and final count was 6 for Josh, 5 for Mick and 2 Abstain.

Members discussed continuing with Josh’s plans and implementing Mick’s suggestions like a second person in charge.

Meeting closed 19:50.