[Int-koordination] WG: [pp-eu] [pp-eu.coordinators] Support of nominations for the PPEU board

["Thomas Gaul" <thomas.gaul AT piratenpartei.de>]

FYI

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pp-eu [mailto:pp-eu-bounces AT lists.pp-international.net] Im Auftrag von 
Stefan Thöni
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Juli 2015 18:32
An: List for international coordinators of the Pirate Parties of the EU; 
pp-eu.board AT lists.pp-international.net; pp-eu AT lists.pp-international.net
Cc: Guillaume Saouli
Betreff: Re: [pp-eu] [pp-eu.coordinators] Support of nominations for the PPEU 
board

Dear Mab,

>> Art. 13 al. 7 phrase 1
>> "Members must pay their annual contribution between the first of 
>> January and the date of the annual Council meeting."
>> So, actually any membership fees for 2015 can still be payed and any 
>> membership fees for 2014 could never be payed and therefore were 
>> wrongly demanded. Plus no rights could not be lost because of 
>> nonpayment yet, since no membership fee was due yet.
> 
> The fee for 2014 was decided as part of the decisions to found the 
> organisation. They could easily have been paid by anyone wanting to pay 
> them. And they were due a long time ago. The failure of the board to 
> collect them have no bearing on the statutes.

So the decision to have extraordinary membership fees due at some time in 
2014 is somehow outside or even contrary to the statutes but its fulfullment 
is considererd a statutory obligation? How can that be? Did the decision even 
include a due date?

>> Art. 13 al. 7 phrase 2
>> "On request of the concerned Ordinary Member party the Council may 
>> allow them under special circumstances with a 2/3-majority of the 
>> votes cast to delay their annual contribution for up to one year or 
>> relieve them of the payment or a part of it."
>> Might the lack of delay of a legally required invoice constitute such 
>> special circumstances? In may opinion, it does, since no member can 
>> be expected to violate the law to pay membership fees.
> 
> That would only make a member being considered having fulfilled their 
> financial duties after such a decision has been made. Not before.

Why? Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

Fact is that this problem was caused by the lack of invoices. A standard 
procedure for demanding money due be payed. Some parties couldn't pay 
without, others simply forgot. It's unfair to deny member's rights based on 
nonpayment widthout providing standard procedures to fulfull these 
obligations.


Kind regards
Stefan Thöni
Co-President
Pirate Party Switzerland
begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:Stefan Th=C3=B6ni
n;quoted-printable:Th=C3=B6ni;Stefan
org:Piratenpartei Schweiz
adr;dom:;;Parkstrasse 7;Steinhausen;;6312
email;internet:stefan.thoeni AT piratenpartei.ch
title;quoted-printable:Co-Pr=C3=A4sident
tel;cell:+41 79 610 64 95
note:Twitter: @pirateexception
url:http://stefanthoeni.ch
version:2.1
end:vcard

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
pp-eu mailing list
pp-eu AT lists.pp-international.net
http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu