I'm getting a little concerned about whether these draft agreements are equitable among the club members. My request to see the agreements hasn't received a reply. You'd expect the different user groups in the Club to be treated even handedly. That should be the norm, always, and especially in a major transaction like this. But is that the case? What little information we have (so far as I'm aware) about the agreements includes that (1) the new hatchery club gets a much longer secure term of years when they can come onto the property and do their thing, compared to the range and archery clubs, and (2) the archery and range clubs will be treated by Surrey just as renters of space, paying user fees, which (I'm pretty sure) the hatchery club won't have to pay. Why aren't all three groups being treated the same in these respects? Why would we give this property to Surrey on terms that are more favourable to one user group than the other two, on these two most important points (term of occupation, and user fees)? If my understanding of the agreements is wrong, I'm happy to be corrected, but that is how it looks to me. I speak as (mainly) a range member, who has also volunteered at the hatchery (with my adult son), and of course I value the hatchery and like everyone I want to see it preserved. I'm told that means it's essential to bring in an outside hatchery manager to replace the long time volunteer who's been doing that role, but doesn't have a successor within the existing hatchery membership. It's great that the City is in a position to fill that role for the hatchery, if we donate the hatchery and the rest of the Club property. But in looking to fix that and the Club's other problems, it's important to remember that the range and archer users are not a second rate class of membership. The Club constitution (by-laws) make that quite clear. Promoting and enabling the shooting sports is an equal object to the supporting the propagation of wildlife. As members of this Club, we've all signed on to respect its full range of activities and the interests of all members in pursuing them. The Societies Act does require fairness among members (see the "oppression" provisions), same as with shareholders in a business company. If we go with this Surrey idea, then as a basic principle, the City should agree to treat all member groups in the three new successor clubs on generally equal terms. That is certainly what we as members should all expect. Without being permitted to see the draft agreements, of course, members can't fully judge how equal or unequal the arrangements may be. Where's the transparency? This is not like a business deal where contracts have to be kept secret because they contain confidential business information.
Now that the Range Director has been authorized to send copies of the agreement package to members who request it, I've had the opportunity to review the package. Unequal seems to be the right word. The terms are much more favourable to the new Hatchery club. From my quick reading, the Hatchery Club gets an initial 10 year term, followed by the "option" to get 4 more 10 year terms, if it's in compliance with the agreement, at each 10 year point. So that's a reasonably secure term for 50 years. At the 50 year point, the City will consider whether to renew again, but the Hatchery Club doesn't have an "option" to get a renewal at that point. For the Archery and Target Clubs, there's a 5 year initial term, and a single "option" (if in compliance) to get another 5 year term. So those 2 clubs get a reasonably secure term for 10 years maximum. That's one fifth of what the board has negotiated for the Hatchery club. And what can the members do during those terms? I don't see any stated schedule or access restrictions at all for the Hatchery Club. For Archery and Target, the schedules are frozen very specifically on a tight, 7 day schedule. It looks like those clubs will have zero rights of access beyond those times. There's no right to grow the activities, or to change from one use in a particular time slot to another. For example, what if the Target Club wanted to switch one time slot to Air Pistol, which is a growing Olympic sport, or add a time slot for that? It could ask the City, but that's all. I don't see any provision for any sort of flexibility here. I also don't see any provision for Target and Archery to have access to the facilities for meeting or social purposes. Over at the Hatchery, I don't see any restriction on members using the meeting area for those purposes. Archery and Target also have to pay the City an hourly charge to use the facilities even when that tight schedule allows them to come in. (I'm tempted to say, that's adding insult to injury.) In that respect, they're just treated like renters who walked in off the street. Members in those two clubs will actually have to pay (through their clubs) to use the facilities we're donating to the City. If I'm summarizing these points from this document incorrectly (I just got it) or left out anything important, then would someone who's more familiar with its contents please correct what I've said in a further post.