Re: SGM Matters...

Ryan Shelswell (ryan@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au)
Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:03:57 +1000 (EST)

I can't make it tonight, so I've just outlined some comments that sprang
to mind... let me first say that the outline seems really good, "there's
just a couple of things..." :-)

On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Dennis Clark wrote:

> Item 4: Proposed procedure for breaches of the Acceptable Usage Policy.
>
> I feel that the greatest problem in the debate over role of the Justice
> League of ProgSoc is the lack of clearly-defined procedure for it. I
> believe that defining such a procedure to handle breaches of the
> Acceptable Usage Policy will make clear why we need a JLP, and how to
> make it effective.

Cool. I have sent a copy of the JLP FAQ to you just now; you can check
it out if you like, it may shortcut a lot of discussion which has
already been had.

> This is my proposed procedure:
>

[...]

> The fact is that in situations where the AUP is unclear
> about the matter (which is where the JLP is most useful), it is
> really only the Executive who has the power to claim a member's
> actions as "prejudicial to the interests of the Society" outside
> of a General Meeting. If the membership does not agree to a
> decision, they can reverse it at an appeal.

The JLP was instigated by the Executive, for the executive. It was
designed exactly because it was felt the Executive wouldn't be as effective
as a group of people who only had this to do, and had no other
responsibilities (such as maintaining popularity ;-) ).

In other words, the executive are perfectly within their rights to delegate
the matter as long as they at least rubber stamp it (because, as you point
out, they will be held responsible by posterity).

Another way to look at it is: everyone wants to be involved with
ProgSoc. Why not share around the decision making (and workload), while
retaining stability and accountability? Also, a JLP protects the Executive
from claims that their are double standards, friendy-no-worry, etc.

Unbelievably enough, not every decision is made by the Prime Minister/
President/Chief-of-staff/whatever.

> The JLP will most likely make recommendations on changes to be
> made to the AUP along with what action should be taken. This
> needs to be passed by the Executive, but is very unlikely to be
> vetoed by them. In the case of JLP proposals for changes to the
> AUP being disapproved by the Executive, the changes can be
> brought forward for membership discussion, and if an agreement
> between the JLP and Executive still cannot be made, a general
> meeting can decide the matter.

Sounds good (and familiar :-) ).

Ryan