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.