[ProgSoc] Constitutional Convention

Roland Turner raz at raz.cx
Sun Mar 13 01:22:57 EST 2011


The general approach has been a stabilising one: to treat the 
constitution as something that shouldn't be changed except where there 
was compelling reason for doing so. That said, there is no crisis in 
progress, it's probably a reasonable to time to perform clean-ups.

On 08/03/11 21:33, Tomislav Bozic wrote:

> Proposed Amendment 1 (Correction of minor errors)

OK.

> Proposed Amendment 2 (Interpretation of the Constitution)
>
> Just a slight re-ordering and embellishment of Section 2, so that it flows
> more logically. Essentially, more nitpicking.
>
>    * Alter Section 2 to read:
>
>    2. INTERPRETATION
>
>    The following terms, unless indicated to the contrary shall mean:
>
>      * Society: Programmers' Society.
>
>      * University, UTS: The University of Technology, Sydney.
>
>      * Union: UTS Union.
>

If you're going to nitpick, "union" refers to "UTS Union Ltd. ACN 107 
038 684" (i.e. the formal name contains the abbreviation "UTS").

> Proposed Amendment 3 (Objects)
>
> I believe all of the objects of ProgSoc should be ongoing rather than a
> series of finite goals to be achieved. Objects 1, 3 and 4 meet this
> criteria, yet
> Object 2 does not because aren't we *already* affiliated with the Union!?
> Maybe we weren't in 1989, but we are now. Accordingly, this needs to be
> changed. I personally prefer the first option (to *remain*) but the second
> one (to *become and remain*) is OK, too.
>
>    * Alter Section 3.2 to read either (1) or (2)
>
>    (1) Remain affiliated with the Union.
>
>    (2) Become and remain affiliated with the Union.

It's immaterial, but sure. Perhaps just "Be affiliated with the Union".

> Proposed Amendment 4 (Membership registration)
>
> At the moment, we do not accept registrations via e-mail (we use a
> web-based form instead), yet we are technically violating the terms of
> 4.2.2 by not offering e-mail registrations, so we should change this to the
> all-encompassing "online facilties" to reflect our current practice better
> and to allow us more flexibility now and into the future i.e. we could
> offer e-mail registrations if we wanted to, but we wouldn't be required to.
>
>    * Alter Section 4.2.2:
>
>    via electronic mailing facilities =>  via online facilities

Sure. Note that, at present, it's redundant anyway; email and web-forms 
_*are*_ writing.

> Proposed Amendment 5 (Terms of expulsion from the Society)
>
> I was scratching my head over this one. There appears to be a blatant
> contradiction and redundancy here. Currently, we allow those members
> subject to expulsion to resign, yet we do not allow those resigners to
> rejoin the club unless approved by the voting populace (and "payment of a
> fresh subscription"). I simply don't see the distinction in this case
> between someone who has been expelled outright and those subject to
> expulsion who exercised their resignation right. They are one and the same
> to me. Ergo, the following amendment.
>
>    * Repeal from Section 4.3.2 (1) and (2) due to contradiction with 4.4
>
>    (1) Persons expelled from the Society under this rule will be given the
>    option of resigning.
>
>    (2) (whether by expulsion or opted resignation)

Disagree. Although there is limited distinction in the rules between the 
handling of these two cases, there is a clear real-world distinction 
between someone who has resigned under threat of expulsion and someone 
who has allowed/chosen to allow things to get to the point of being 
actually expelled. It is an option for would-be-expelled members to 
retain some limited dignity and should be retained.

There is also a small difference: someone who resigns under threat of 
expulsion has implicitly waived their right to appeal.

This structure has a long (pre-ProgSoc) history and is worth retaining.

> Proposed Amendment 6 (Definition of Executive Committee Vacancies)
>
> This was inspired, in part, by our CSO's recent permanent interstate
> relocation and how it would affect his ability to carry out his duties and
> whether, as a result of the relocation, the office could be considered
> vacant. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Constitution does not
> explicitly define under what circumstances an Executive vacancy can take
> place, so I've listed the five cases that I could think of. I stress the
> importance of a vote of no confidence to be *unanimous*. Also, we as a club
> do not conduct OGMs any more (just the one annual AGM is enough, it seems),
> so it would be more appropriate to call an SGM to elect a new Executive
> member.
>
>    * Alter Section 5.2 to read:
>
>    5.2 Executive Committee Vacancies
>
>    5.2.1 A position on the Executive Committee shall not be considered
>    vacant unless one of the following takes place:
>
>    5.2.1.1 An Executive Committee member has submitted a formal
>    resignation from their position on the Executive Committee, in writing,
>    to the Executive Committee and it is accepted by the remaining members
>    of the Executive Committee.
>
>    5.2.1.2 An Executive Committee member has resigned, subject
>    to 4.4.
>
>    5.2.1.3 An Executive Committee member has been expelled, subject to
>    4.3.2.
>
>    5.2.1.4 A unanimous vote of no confidence in an Executive Committee
>    member, by the remaining members of the Executive Committee, has been made.
>
>    5.2.1.5 An Executive Committee member has died or is otherwise
>    incapacitated.
>
>    5.2.2 Any vacancy occurring on the Executive Committee shall be filled
>    at a Special General Meeting to be held as soon as possible after the
>    vacancy occurs.

Upgrading to an SGM makes sense, but the rest is unwarranted.

    * The "list of cases that we can think of" will never cover everything.
    * A simpler approach than granting the exec a new right - and
      codifying it - is that an SGM pass a motion affirming that there
      is a vacancy and then elect a successor. This does not need to be
      codified in the constitution.
    * If there is _*any*_ dispute from the incumbent about whether
      there's a vacancy then there's no vacancy.
    * If an SGM affirms that a vacancy exists, appoints a successor and
      then there is a subsequent dispute by the former incumbent, then
      this can be dealt with be a subsequent SGM.


> Proposed Amendment 7 (Secretary's duties)
>
> Today, most correspondence between the Executive members and to external
> parties on behalf of the Executive takes place via email. We simply do not
> send paper-based correspondence any longer, which was undoubtedly more
> commonplace in 1989 (even if everyone in ProgSoc used email back then). So
> I think it would be appropriate to diminish the Secretary's responsibility
> in this regard and charge them with the responsibility of conducting just
> our paper-based correspondence, should the need ever arise. All other
> correspondence can be (and is being) conducted by individual Executive
> members (including the Secretary) on behalf of the Executive.
>
>    * Alter Section 5.5.3:
>
>    conduct all correspondence =>  conduct all paper-based correspondence

Disagree. The secretary is nominally responsible for all correspondence 
on behalf of the organisation. This is a common structure. That 
some/most of that correspondence is performed by other is by the by. 
This is analogous to the situation with the CSO; the fact that other 
exec members may perform system admin functions doesn't change the 
allocation of duties.

> Proposed Amendment 8 (CSO's duties)
>
> This is what the CSO does already -- I know I did -- so it should be
> codified, just as the President's and Treasurer's AGM reports are
> required.
>
>    * Append to Section 5.5.5:
>
>    and on behalf of the Executive Committee submit a report on the state of
>    the Society's computer related resources at the Annual General Meeting.

Reasonable.

> Proposed Amendment 9 (Organs of mass communication)
>
> In practice, all important club-related announcements are published online
> and/or on posters in front of the club room. Rarely, if ever, do we post
> announcements in paper form on the Union noticeboard (so again we are
> technically violating our Constitution by not doing so). However, we should
> leave that as an option and officially endorse our "online services" (i.e.
> ProgSoc's website and this mailing list) as some of the
> club's official "organs of mass communication". After this amendment is
> approved, a notice or announcement would be considered officially
> published or announced if it was published/announced on *either* the notice
> board *or* the website/mailing list *or* both.
>
>    * Insert phrase "and/or the Society's online services" to the following
>    clauses, as follows:
>
>    4.3.2 after "on the Union Notice Board at Broadway".
>
>    7.5.1 after "on the union notice board at Broadway".
>
>    8.2 after "on the union notice board at Broadway".
>
>    9.1 after "on the union notice board at Broadway".

Disagree. If we're breaching this, then we need to stop breaching!

It is the norm for organisational notices to require posting in a 
physical place; I suspect that the Union will not regard this at 
optional anyway.

> Proposed Amendment 10 (Satisfying Union requirements)
>
> As of 2010, the Union in their infinite wisdom, have imposed a rule upon
> affiliated societies that requires at least three Executive members to be
> members of the Union's Advantage Programme. There is no pretty solution to
> this problem, although one potential solution would be to require all
> candidates to be Union members before accepting their nomination. Not an
> ideal solution, not an idea I'm a fan of -- and no less awkward than asking
> a newly-elected Executive member to volunteer to join the AP when it has
> transpired that less than three Executive members are Union members as
> well, nor less audacious than the proposition last year to create up to
> three new Executive positions known as GAPs (Gratuitous Advantage
> Programme members), for the sole purpose of AP compliance -- but it should
> future-proof us should the Union at a whim decide to require more club
> Executive members to financially support them. Definitely *not* an issue in
> pre-VSU days!
>
>    * Append to Section 5.4:
>
>    Candidates for election must be financial members of the Union.

A failure by the exec to meet the Union's requirements would be 
sufficient reason to demand an SGM. There's little reason to make 
constitutional amendments to deal with a situation where the exec gets 
ProgSoc disaffiliated and the membership doesn't see this is sufficient 
reason to demand an SGM. More broadly, there's no reason to actually 
bring the Union requirements for affiliation into the constitution 
except to the extent that the Union's affiliation requirements are 
specifically about the content of the constitution; this one isn't.

In the alternative, sufficient members of the exec - priority per the 
sequence of roles listed in 5.1.1 - should be financial Union members 
soon enough to meet the Union's requirements; note that this only need 
happen after election and before filing; requiring it for candidacy is 
unreasonable. (But, as above, it shouldn't be necessary to spell this 
out in the constitution and to amend it from year to year as the 
requirements change anyway; it is simply part of the exec's role to 
ensure that the organisation meets the requirements from year to year.)

> Proposed Amendment 11 (Representative roles)
>
> Of all the deficiencies of the Constitution, this one has bothered me the
> most, so I have placed it last. I simply do not understand why the other
> five Executive members' roles are defined, yet the representative roles are
> not. Was this due to an oversight at the time of the previous
> amendment (2005) or was this intentional i.e. let the Executive decide from
> year to year what the representatives are supposed to be doing?

This need not be specified in the constitution. It may be argued that 
5.5.5 is unnecessary for the same reason, but I'd be inclined to simply 
leave it as-is, give or take your report-to-the-AGM proposal.

- Raz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20110312/beb6032f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Progsoc mailing list