Should we split District 73 into 2 Districts?

Have your say on this very important subject.

Read the discussion below and then contribute your ideas in a post. Add a comment or put forward an argument. At the end of this article, there are previous posts, and then a screen where you can type in your comment or put forward new ideas. You will be asked for your name and email, and then you can submit your own material.

This post was originally submitted on August 31. Since then the District 73 Executive has met in Adelaide and decided to publicise the issue in time for it to be considered at the November 24 District Council Meeting being held in Melbourne. Lt Governor Bernard Marmion  circulated an information sheet about the split to all District Clubs on October 5. You can download the Reformation Proposal as a pdf file.

Have your say. This will be a very significant decision for District 73. We need as wide a discussion as possible. Already ten members have contributed their thoughts, and most are definitely unenthusiastic about the proposal at this time. So what do you think? Read the explanation following and then post your ideas and opinions.

Why split District 73?

District 73 is geographically the largest in the Toastmaster world. It covers 4 Australian States – Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. This makes it very difficult to administer, because it is 3,000 kms (2,000 miles) from Melbourne the main population centre in the east, and Perth, the main population centre in the west.

australiaoutline1.jpg

Look at the difference from District 69, covering Queensland and the Northern Territory, and District 70, New South Wales (and Canberra of course). They are big Districts compared to most in the world, but nothing like the geographical spread of District 73.

What split is proposed?

It is proposed to split the existing District 73 into two Districts. The main residual District would have Victorian and Tasmanian Clubs. The new District would have West Australian and South Australian Clubs.

What are the benefits to WA and SA to split off?

    Melbourne Clubs have dominated District Administrations for many years. WA and SA leaders have often felt neglected and ignored by District Administrations run from Melbourne. Having our own District would shift decision making to our clubs. Then it would be up to us to run our own affairs.
    Travel costs have limited our opportunities to take part. Currently, the District Convention is held in WA once every 4 years and in SA once every four years. Travel expenses to get to Melbourne from Perth have been rising steadily. With our own District, Conventions would be held in Perth twice every three years and in Adelaide once in every three years. This will be a definite benefit to WA members and a marginal benefit to SA members.
    Perth and Adelaide are similarly sized cities. Melbourne is much larger. Perth and Adelaide members will share many common problems, which are different from those in Melbourne.

What are the possible disadvantages of the split?

    South Australian members may feel dominated by Western Australia. Currently WA has twice as many clubs and members as SA, and current growth figures may maintain that balance.
    For South Australian members, Perth is much further away than Melbourne. It is practical for SA members to drive to Melbourne, but not very practical to drive to Perth.
    West Australian members may feel like waiting till they can have a District in their own right. If they can form 8 new clubs this year, then two or three more years of the same will get them to the magic 60. Administratively it may be much better to have a District based on just the one State.

What would be the process to carry through the split?

The previous District Council held in Perth in May, 2007, appointed Geoff Morrissey from Melbourne to set up a Reformation Committee to report to the District Council in November, which will be held in Melbourne. Geoff is coordinating this Committee which has representatives from all four states –

  • Tasmania Edmund Breen
  • Victoria Jack Fawcett
  • South Australia Nick Nash
  • Western Australia David Nicholas

The process from now on will be:

  1. The Committee is currently considering the Reformation (the split) proposal and will soon present its report to Clubs.
  2. A motion may be presented to the District Council being held in Melbourne in November. If it adopts a Reformation (split) motion, that proposal will be sent to the Directors at World Headquarters.
  3. If they approve the proposal, the District Council meeting at the Convention in Lilydale in May, 2008 will elect one District Governor for District 73, and two Lt Governors Education and two Lt Governors Marketing for the two separated Districts.
  4. At the District Council to be held in Adelaide in May, 2009, elections will be held for both of the two separated Districts – each will have a District Governor, a Lt Governor Education and Training, and a Lt Governor Marketing.
  5. The two Districts will function separately from July 1, 2009.

There is an opportunity right now

Until this year, World Headquarters has insisted that a new District must have 100 clubs, but now they have announced that in some circumstances 60 Clubs is enough. Look at the current number of clubs in each State, with a projected number of new clubs being formed this year.

  Tasmania Victoria South Australia Western Australia
Now 5 89 15 35
Potential New 1 5 4 8
Potential Total 6 94 19 43

These are speculative figures, but they show there is a real possibility that by the end of this current Toastmaster year, we could have over 160 clubs in the District, up from 145 at July 1, with 100 between Victoria and Tasmania and over 60 in Western Australia and South Australia.

Western Australia and South Australia could combine to form a new District

The numbers may be there. Perhaps we can achieve the targets, and perhaps the Toastmasters Directors will approve the split.

What do you think?

  • Should we do it? Should we try to reform District 73 into two Districts?
  • Is this the right year to try to do it? or should we wait till Club numbers build up further?
  • How do we publicise it? How can we best get information out to the Club and District Officers who will make these decisions?

David Nicholas
David Nicholas DTM

Have your say. Post a comment or a suggestion.

16 Responses to “Should we split District 73 into 2 Districts?”

  1. Avatar for David Dembo David Dembo says:

    I’m by no means a veteran Toastmaster, and haven’t really had any involvement with District competitions and such as yet, but considering the proposal based on the facts above I’d think it would be worth deferring any decision for a year or two.

    A large part of the proposal seems to be down to fate at the moment – the number of clubs between SA and WA will only *potentially* be just large enough to be *considered* as a separate District at the end of this year. I’d think it would be better to have a relatively decent-sized buffer in case some clubs are disbanded in the first part of next year for example.

    Also, geographically, it makes more sense for WA to be its own district – if we can get the numbers I think it would be the better option.

    Judging by the figures above, club growth in WA seems to be far stronger than anywhere else currently. A 50% increase in WA’s growth rate (e.g. in the region of 12-15+ clubs per annum, which at least sounds relatively easy) would see us have enough clubs (potentially 🙂 for a split 1 year from now, as well as an extremely strong growth rate to help consolidate our position.

    Deferring the decision would give us some time to see if we can achieve this target – I’m sure we can come up with some innovative marketing/PR ideas if we have a think about it. For example, we could create specific campaigns targeted at generating interest in regions of weaker membership (such as regional areas), or target different industries/occupations, etc.

    In summary, if the benefits of WA being its own district are significant enough, I think it would be worth giving this proposal a year or so to simmer while we step up our efforts and see what we’re capable of.

  2. Avatar for Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth says:

    This is a purely personal view, not yet discussed in my Club. I am much in sympathy with David Dembo’s opinion.
    Presumably SA would not be forced into a SA/WA District against its wishes. I find it hard to believe that SA Division would have any interest in the idea. It would be much further from its District’s “centre of power” than is now the case, and convention delegates would have to make the “long” Perth trip two years in three instead of the present one in four (that’s eight in twelve as against three). My judgment of human nature says that we might as well forget it.
    That leads us to a longer term, carefully planned, aim of 60 Clubs for a WA Division. We need to create a “Development Committee” which has the task of encouraging and aiding the establishment of new Clubs, so as to achieve the 60 as promptly, but soundly, as possible.

  3. Avatar for Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth says:

    Sorry for my slip — “Division” in my last paragraph should be “District”. R.

  4. Avatar for Eric Davies Eric Davies says:

    I am strongly in favour of a breakup of District 73, it is long overdue, but I would not be in favour of WA forming a District with SA. I spoke to a lot of South Australian Toastmasters at the Fremantle convention and not one was in favour of that idea, and I don’t blame them. What is the point in putting in a great effort getting a restructure that will have many of the basic flaws of the current structure? We would still have to travel interstate for some conventions.

    The fact is that if we are a little patient and work hard at it WA can be a district in its own right and that is by far the preferred option. Toastmasters here is rising, it is forward looking and dynamic, in growth mode. All the other states in District 73 are in mature mode, just hanging in there. South Australia is particularly underperforming, with a market penetration of just one club for every 98,000 population compared with WA 58,800. This compares with Victoria 57,000 (or without the gerrymander 60,000) NSW 28,600, ACT 12,800, Queensland 25,900, Tasmania 98,000, New Zealand 18,500.

    Those stats seem to demonstrate that we are in with the laggards when it comes to market penetration. But we have dynamic leadership and we have a forward looking population similar to Queensland so there is no reason that we could not reach the market penetration of Queensland which would give us 80 clubs. Or if we managed New Zealand’s market penetration we would have 110 clubs, more than enough for a district.

    Toastmasters in WA had a late start compared with the other states, 1974, and was probably also held back because Rostrum was much stronger here than in other states. Rostrum now seems to be a spent force in WA, with just 66 new members in the first six months of 2007 (go to http://www.rostrum.com.au/wa/Publications and download Informer Aug/Sept) compared with Toastmasters 82 for the first three months of this Toastmaster year (typically slow recruitment months). Also our brand recognition is now much higher that Rostrum, especially in the younger age groups.

    Toastmasters in WA can look forward to a golden age of growth in the next few years, provided we encourage our current strong leadership and avoid the personality conflicts that have plagued District 73 in the past. We would be less that smart, in my opinion, to form a District with South Australia.

  5. Avatar for Gil Alexander Gil Alexander says:

    I believe that the best long term structure is for Western Australia to constitute a separate Toastmaster District. Progressive splits of the existing District 73 should be the natural course of events as the Toastmasters influence spreads and the Toastmaster club numbers grow.

    I am continuously reminded that the Mission Statement (the whole purpose) of Toastmasters Internationalis is to “……… help men and women learn the arts of speaking, listening and thinking….”. “It is basic to this mission that Toastmasters International continually expands its worldwide network of clubs, thereby offering ever-greater numbers of people the opportunity to benefit from its programs”.

    What this is saying in effect that it is a fundamental responsibility of Toastmasters clubs to be looking for opportunities to create further clubs.

    If a decision has been made by Toastmasters International that 60 clubs could constitute a Toastmasters District, then I do not see any merit in proceeding at this time with Western Australia and South Australia as a Distict. All that would do would be to transpose the issues that Western Australia has with the current centralisation of control in Victoria, to the same issue for South Australia with the control being centralised in Western Australia. Unecessary travelling costs would still be needed to run the District, with inefficiencies of distance. Further it would in fact hinder the creation of a separate Toastmasters District in Western Australia until South Australia has reached the magical minimum of 60 clubs. (South Australia would need to more than treble in size, whilst Western Australia needs to gain a further 25 clubs (70%), a much easier task.)

    I would like to see the energies in Western Australia focussed on strengthening the current clubs that need it, and instigating a high level committee of senior Toastmasters in Western Australia tasked with the role of expanding the number of clubs in Western Australia to satisfy District status. I note that this process has already started under the stewardship of District Governor Mike Helm.

    Setting up clubs is time consuming, requires a significant core of dedicated Toastmasters, and can be costly, particularly if we are looking at regional clubs (Geraldton, kalgoorlie, Broome, Derby, Kununarra, etc). This expansion could be funded by a subsidy from District 73 for each new club formed (presumablably as a marketing cost and augmented from funds generated from District/Division organised Speechcraft courses. A second stream of funding could come from core strong Western Australian clubs that already generate a steady flow of funds through the running of Speechcraft courses on a club level.

    This process may take a couple of years more to effect than achieving 60 clubs together with South Australia, however it would mean that Western Australia would be a separate Disrict and in complete control of its own destiny.

    Should it be that the current Toastmasters International stance on using 60 clubs as a base for a Tostmasters District is only a window of opportunity reflecting the current TI management team, and is likely to change in the near future, then it is probably better to proceed now with the creation of the necessary 10 additional clubs to create a new District with Western Auastralia and South Australia.

    In summary, I see no value in haste as this would inevitably hinder the creation of a separate Western Australia Toastmasters Ditrict. What is needed is a focus of energies to create additional clubs within Western Australia to achieve the best long term structure of Western Australia with its own Toastmasters District.

    Gil Alexander ATMG
    Perth Division Governor 2007-2008
    Western Australia Speechcraft Coordinator 2005-2008

  6. Avatar for Gawain Simpson Gawain Simpson says:

    I don’t believe WA is anywhere near ready for a district on it’s own or with just SA.

    We currently have 35 clubs in WA, of which 16 are below charter strength, and only 4 clubs are outside Metropolitan Perth. Plus there are many members who are in more than 1 club, therefore their membership is being counted multiple times, so the total members figure is probably considerably overstated. I am sceptical we could start up 8 more clubs without having many more dual memberships.

    Having our own district would mean having to organise our own convention every year, which, having been involved with it this year in Fremantle, is a large undertaking and not one I would want to have to do every year. The lack of clubs outside Perth would mean it was almost always in or around Perth.
    It would also mean a much smaller pool of contestants in the speech contests. I already know the styles of many of the top speakers in our divisions, as I am sure many do. How much more of a contest it is to compete against those in other states too.

    We should look to consolidate the clubs we currently do have rather than putting too much effort into starting new clubs at the expense of struggling ones.

  7. Avatar for Jim Stephen Jim Stephen says:

    Hi David,
    I can’t see any benefit being asscoiated with a distant executive situated in Victoria. Western Australia has the talent and numbers to be an independant and self governing body.
    Jim Stephen
    Bunbury Toastmasters

  8. Avatar for Ian Pickens Ian Pickens says:

    I state in the outset I am 100% behind transition planning. Without the plan nothing will change and we will not move forward.

    I am however concerned this is viewed as a change not a plan. As a plan the timing is great but as a change as presented in Bernhard’s document D73 is still a long way off being sustainable as two Districts.

    FACTS

    The table below relies heavily upon statistics provided by Lt Gov marketing Bernhard Marmion. I have included a couple of columns to this table without altering or validating the accuracy of the contents.

    WA
    35 Clubs, 2 Divisions, 512 members, 700 required @ 20 members per club, 188 Differential
    SA
    16 Clubs, 1 Division, 246 members, 320 required @ 20 members per club, 74 Differential.
    Vic
    89 Clubs, 6 Divisions, 1444 members, 1780 required @ 20 members per club, 336 Diferential.
    Tas
    5 Clubs, part of Vic Division, 51 members, 49 required @ 20 members per club, 49 Differential

    With numbers as published 08 Oct 07 in WA 12 clubs have 15 or less members, plus a further 4 clubs with less than 20 members. Whilst this is not in itself an issue it is 19 of the 35 clubs that are below 20 members a significant number in my opinion. WA is not alone in club strength.

    In fact although Victoria has 89 clubs they are 336 members short of ideal club members, without specifics that is a lot of clubs with less than 20 members. Plus many members are already duplicated in more than one club.

    The only reason I allude to this is to highlight we are strong in the number but our volumes are vulnerable.

    The travel time or cost from WA to Vic as opposed WA to SA is very insignificant. The issue identified is the larger numbers of travellers have to travel East to West and no matter where from it still 4 or 5 hours. The logic is for West and East to reform separately.

    PROPOSALS

    The proposal currently offered is to isolate SA and WA leaving them 9 clubs short of minimum District club numbers and they should bypass the inconvenience of travel. It does leave a strong Victoria District

    I suggest

    Tasmania (5) South Australia (16) Victoria (50) form one District. Call it District (A).
    Victoria (39) and WA (35) form the other District. Call it District (B).

    Victoria A would already be a viable District with 71 clubs and only one hours travel to join interstate peers. They would also have the goal of 29 new clubs to join the 100 club District level.

    The plan would then be to have Victoria B add 21 new clubs and WA add 25 new clubs. I can only imagine the energy and excitement particularly at convention as both groups grow and maybe even compete to reach a common goal and become a District in their own right with 60 clubs each.

    RESULTS

    The immediate result would be two very viable Districts. District A with 71 clubs, District B with 74 clubs.

    This allows for a little reduction and adjustment with the imminent dummy spitting before alarming TI and provides great incentive for each newly formed District to grow and strengthen.

    Yes it means there is still travel to traverse the continent. Yes it means there is a bit of work to realign Divisions and areas. Yes it means some members will ponder their plight at being the B team in Victoria and why them. Provided the strongest clubs are not sucked into District A leaving the most vulnerable to collapse. Provided there is balance and cooperation toward success I firmly believe it is a better working environment.

    The pinch would come when either of the B groups made their target. I am confident WA will be the first of those to reach 60 clubs the process for growth and leadership arouses great confidence for success.

    Ian Pickens
    President
    City of Perth

  9. Avatar for Dennis Talbot Dennis Talbot says:

    Given that our next October meeting is devoted to hosting the W16 Area Competitions and the closing date for comment is 21 October this communication is a summary of emails received by me as Swan Club President prior to the scheduled discussion of the above proposal at our next regular Club Meeting on 14 November 2007.
    Further communication to the Reform Committee may occur post our discussion.

    1. Swan Club Membership includes the current W16 Area Governor, 4 ex Area Governors, an ex Western Division Governor and five members with dual membership of clubs within Western Division.

    2. There is general Support in Principle for Reform – how this should be done is a moot point amongst membership who have contacted me.

    The options presented by the Reform Committee will be discussed on 14 November

    2. Given current and historic knowledge of the status of ‘charter strength’ and the difficulties faced by many clubs in maintaining membership at or above 20 members the respondents feel that effort by the Western Division Management could be better spent in strengthening those Clubs where membership is well down ie not only bringing them up to charter strength but maintaining charter strength, rather than attempting to create new clubs from same limited population that comprises Western Australia.

    When Clubs are strong and plentiful is the time for Reformation!

    3. There are as many ways to create a new club as there are members of Toastmasters – each of us are equally creative! One way proposed by Toastmasters is Dual Membership!

    The collective fear of respondents is that ‘after creation and reformation’ how many clubs in the new district will remain sustainable in the long term?

    In other words what is the short term goal of D73 and Western Division? strong clubs with strong membership or two new districts?

    4. Although D73 was created from NSW our question is how strong was D73 in the beginning? Also how sustainable were their Clubs? How easy has it been for them to create and maintain Clubs? What was the population in real terms of D73 from which to create new clubs?

    Dennis Talbot
    President Swan Club
    12 October 2007

  10. Avatar for Norman Yap Norman Yap says:

    We must consider the pros and cons if we split from District 73. Do we have enough clubs to form a district? In terms of land size, we ought to split WA into 2 district.

    NSW & ACT formed District 70 many years ago. In 2006 at the AGM held in Ettalong, we discussed to split NSW & ACT into 2 district.

    The time is ripe for us to form a new district where new members (leaders) can actively participate.

    Jun Yap

  11. Avatar for kuttyvk kuttyvk says:

    I am voting in for waiting for Wa to have the required Clubs (60-65). and be a District alone. Though travelling does take time and money,it does discourage Toastmaster members and family to attend conventions in the Eastern States . (Expensive).

  12. Avatar for Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth Ray Morgan, VPM, City of Perth says:

    I have opined above that I don’t believe that a SA/WA District would appeal to SA. On further reflection, and having the benefit of other opinions, I now strongly believe that it shouldn’t appeal to us either. We have 35 Clubs, SA has 15. If we are cast off in tandem with SA (presumably when the minimum “special circumstances” combined figure of 60 is reached) are we then stuck with SA until SA has 60? — that would be just about forever! Don’t forget SA is in practice just about as far away from us as Melbourne is. One can understand why Vic. is keen to be rid of us, but we must not let them do it to us until we can stand alone.

  13. Avatar for Gail Jenkins Gail Jenkins says:

    I see no point in aligning WA with SA. Even without the concern of it not suiting SA, it doesn’t solve the distance problem. Whether you travel from WA to SA or Victoria matters little. Until we can have our own WA District there seems little point in making the split. Until then being in a larger district seems to me to have more positives than negatives. It appears a WA/SA District would make WA the stronger party in the partnership but that does not seem like a good reason for a split. Rather WA needs to get stronger, build numbers and get in a position where WA can split off a strong WA District.

  14. Avatar for Shan-Rose Shan-Rose says:

    I feel things should be left as is for the time being. WA is not strong enough re: members to just be split into two sections (with SA). I have been in Toastmasters quite a few years and have spoken to other comittee members of other clubs over the past couple of years and there has been a lot of ‘numbers are dropping off’ committee members doing ‘dual’ roles.
    Trying to create new clubs just to make up numbers is unrealistic to me – we need to build our existing clubs.
    I have memories in the past of clubs been ‘full’ and members having to ‘wait/stand in line’ to present speeches. It is not like that now – numbers are generally dropping in clubs and ‘we’ as committee members are finding it increasinly more difficult to ‘attract new members’.
    At the last ‘Committe training’ workshop at Fremantle I noticed that a huge amount of the old members are no longer there. We have replaced peaople (when they leave) in some cases but we are not increasing our numbers as we should be.

  15. Avatar for Andris Bilkens DTM Andris Bilkens DTM says:

    As I read your commentary, in an ironical way, I can only see support for a District reformation. How so?

    The posted blogs are primarily from the West and discuss the benefits for Western Australian Toastmaster members upon a successful District reformation. Views from experienced, senior members and novice members alike. Have we the Club numbers? Have we the experienced leaders? We should form a District in our own right. We need to be in complete control of our own destiny. ….

    The What’s In It For Me perspectives abound. What are we getting out of it and how can we maximise the opportunity.

    However, the reformation question posed belongs to the full District, all four States. Other than Ian, in the forum, I haven’t read ‘What will be best for Victoria, SA, or Tasmania….” or, importantly “What is best for District 73?”. There is no visionary perspective for the best outcome for Toastmasters not only in District 73 but for Australia as a whole.

    It seems to me, the discussion is characterised by opportunistic self interest, defined by parochial attitudes. Is there anything wrong with that? Well, other than the technical omission of three other States, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a strong regional response. The reality is one ought to expect such perspectives from members who reside in Western Australia.

    I now ask a question, when other States sit in a committee consisting of local members is it reasonable that they will also consider matters in the same parochial way. Of course they do. We wish that it were not so – but it is. The rhetorical question then becomes “When a committee, consisting of a majority of Victorian District 73 members meet in Victoria, which perspectives are they likely to be supporting?”

    The fact is District 73 has effectively been in the control of our good Victorian members for over 31 years. Since the formation of our District in July 1976 there has only ever been one Spring Council meeting held outside of Victoria (in WA 2005) and, to my knowledge, three Executive Council meetings. For an organisation that predicates its existence on active member representation, in our District meetings, we are simply out of whack.

    When a Victorian Executive or, indeed, a Victorian Council is discussing the District budget, that year’s primary marketing focus, practical District support to Clubs, where do you think the emphasis will lie? Members passionate about their Clubs in their region will be considering their needs.

    Allow me to remind you of two recent important events. When Western Australia recently reformed into two Divisions it was put to a vote by the District Council. Other than the Western Australians affected do you really think any other member had a clue where the new Division boundaries were to be drawn? It was an important regional matter for local members and it was these members who knew what was going on.

    Similarly, when Victoria reformed from four to six Divisions did any non – Victorian really know where the new boundaries were to be drawn? I don’t think so. Yet the Victorians knew – as it affected their Clubs. It was a regional matter for local Clubs.

    There is almost an epiphany in recognising that regional matters affecting local Clubs are best decided by the membership of that area. The best decisions are made using the credible and accurate resources of local members to empower and motivate their members. The best decisions for our Victorian Clubs are best made by our Victorian members. And, the best decisions for our Western Australian Clubs are made by Western Australian members.

    When we reflect on the reformation question it is clear that Victoria is of a size whereby they meet the minimum Club reformation numbers, have an inherent leadership base and now have six active Divisions. Victoria ought to be a District in its own right. To enjoy the empowerment that local decision making gives and to take Victoria to an even greater strength. We only need to look at NSW and Queensland to see how their Districts have untapped their potential in each State.

    There is a time in every ‘family’ when parents ought to be suggesting to their children to find their own path in life. In 1975 a Victorian, Piers Foa, was the only person outside of NSW elected to District Governor for the then rather large area of District 70. At the time District 70 included all our District 73 States and NSW, including Canberra. He recognised then, as true as it is today, that the tyranny of distance encumbered by time and cost, hampered the progress of NSW. He proposed the separation of all the other States from NSW to form District 73.

    The same concerns existed then, as they exist today, especially as there were only 15 Clubs in the proposed new District 73 and the WHQ requirement was 25. Persistence and vision paid off, however, and at the time of the 1976 Annual General Meeting, with 23 active Clubs and 2 Clubs in formation, District 73 was given the imprimatur to proceed.

    Do not the same conditions exist today? Why can’t we harness the fierce parochial attitudes of our States and fully maximise the potential of Toastmasters in Australia?

    Victoria ought to exist as a separate District and WA, SA and Tasmania form another District. Realistically, in some future year, conditions will change and we will again reconsider our District boundaries. My father often said there was nothing more certain than change itself.

    For some reason the emphasis in this forum has been “When will it be the best time for WA (or SA or Tasmania) to leave District 73?” The real question ought to be “Its about time that you left”

  16. […] has been a proposal to split District 73 into two Districts – you can read about this at The Split Proposal.  However the Split Convenor, Geoff Morrissey, has not been able to publicise widely enough the […]

Comments are closed.