Legal Entities - to have or not to have

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Deirdre Kent on May 14, 2008 at 15:31

Not sure if this is going to work in our case. If we in Kapiti want to create a timebank then it has to be done under some umbrella. Timebanks attract funding from the usual funding agencies and it is a pity to miss out on this.

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on May 14, 2008 at 16:12

Maybe the society would have to be seen as part of the network, not an umbrella or regulary body. The purpose would be something that a local, unincorporated body wouldn't be able to do - like attracting funding. Fundraising could be a service to the local groups. There might be other functions, like acting as an educational body, producing educational materials, do or organise consultancy work for individual projects (or anything else that qualifies for charitable status).

Otherwise, what was your initial idea for the creation of an Incorporated Society?

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on May 14, 2008 at 20:47

This discussion makes me think of all the discussions about economics and currency, and the inability of most to leave the mental box they are sitting in ....

In earnest - what are you looking for, James? Is the issue one of finding new ways of organising ourselves? I think there are no limits as to how we do things together, and what kind of bodies, organisations and systems we set up. As long as it does the job we want it to do. In this case you just need to clarify the task at hand, and depending on that an organisational structure can be built around it.

Or is a question of legality? Is it about the forms of organisation that the law prescribes and recognizes in the legal system? Trusts, companies, cooperatives, incorporated societies and the such are all coded into law, with requirements and rules. They are all somewhat inflexible, but the laws seems to be set up to to limit and streamline our behaviour. Are you suggesting that we create new legal structures? Or new forms of incorporation?

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on May 15, 2008 at 6:52

Hi James,
yes, I suppose I didn't really understand what your concerns were and from what background you started the discussion. I'm happy to have a little chat!

Permalink Reply by Deirdre Kent on May 16, 2008 at 17:38

The officer from Kapiti Coast District Council strongly advised us to get some form of legal entity. Said a lot of doors open once you do this, even though it is a hassle.

Permalink Reply by Richard Lee on June 25, 2008 at 15:17

What I really like about the Transition model is that it is inclusive and celebratory. I see it as creating the alternate, progressively from within. Rather than reactively placing itself outside the norm to create the alternative, as so often has happened in the past with social movements.

So from that perspective I think we should certainly be exploring the options of legal entities that are available to us but in doing so, we need to find a structure that best suits the needs of the regional groups collectively.

I think the points about potentially significant consequences and liabilities of having an organisational structure are very valid but I think this is more a question of the meta perceptions and relationships that occur within organisiastions rather than the structure of the entity itself.

In saying that though ( and here my Social Ecology lecturers would flail me for this comment,) I believe hierachy to be almost a constant pattern found throughout nature and therefore is a pattern that is very difficult to get away from. Therefore, I think we need to be aware of it and work with it rather than trying to suppress it or pretend it doesn't exist. People, I think, want leadership, they respond to it. The real question is how that leadership functions? What are its intents? And how maleable and responsive is it?.

I think with work, TT could adopt a legal entity status yet challenge those normal patterns of relationship associated with organisation. For me that is where the challenges lie, not in the structure itself.


My other thoughts on this issue are that if we simply align ourselves to the umbrella services of another legal entity, be it on a national scale or even regional, we would be not be creating the new and inclusive structures we desire. We would simply be piggybacking off someone else's existing legal entity. Therefore, someone else, at arms length, would be performing those very roles, responsibilities and functions that in many ways I think we would like to avoid.

From a purely financial perspective I think thats a bit tenuous and from an ethical perspective....well I'm not real sure but something doesn't sit well with me in that scenario. Kind of like trying to have our cake and eat it too!?

So for me, adopting a legal status is preferable. I think the positives of opening funding streams and the potential for a national structure to support the regional groups far out weigh the negatives.
The question is how do we keep whatever structures or entities we may choose open and inclusive and responsive to change?

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on June 25, 2008 at 16:36

Just a question: what is an 'Association'? There is no such legal form here in New Zealand...

Permalink Reply by Alistair Munro on July 6, 2008 at 22:56

Hi CHristoph - Re "Associaton", I think that its just a generic term like "organisation" , but with the tenor of having a more or less formal structure and some ongoing existence - not a reference to any particular legal form in NZ , though an association may of course have a legal form. I would imagine that most A&P Associations in NZ, for example, are incorporated societies or possibly trusts, legally. Some may even be companies.
Kind wishes
Alistair