[ProgSoc] Constitutional Convention

Tomislav Bozic tomchristmas at progsoc.org
Wed Mar 16 23:27:25 EST 2011


>> I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'crisis', though.
>
> I said that there _*doesn't*_ appear to be one (and that, therefore,
> this _*is*_ a good time for clean-ups); knee-jerk changes during a
> crisis are something that is to be avoided; crises in progress have in
> the past been reasons for not changing the constitution at those times.

Case in point:

http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc-asof270208/1997/04%20Apr/0000.html

>> Also, giving the Constitution a bit of a "spring clean" every five years
>> or so, if needed, isn't too bad an idea...
>
> Yes and no. For the constitution to remain the minimal infrastructure
> that it was intended, it should also go very long periods with no change
> at all. It should also lean towards containing only that which is
> essential.

What I meant by "spring clean" was giving the Constitution a thorough
read-through (as I have) every few years and -- if and *only if* a
change is deemed necessary -- suggest changes and/or implement them.

In any case, *all* current and potential members of the Executive should
thoroughly read the Constitution and know it well, so that they can govern
the club effectively by its conditions.

I would also give the AUP and Guidelines for Adminstrators similar
treatment as well...but we're talking about the Constitution here, so...

>> ...and I would hope that any Executive carrying out an expulsion -- and
>> may
>> the Almighty Bob forbid us from ever having to resort to such actions
>> in the future! -- would treat the expellee with the utmost respect and
>> give them a fair chance to explain themselves and perhaps air their
>> grievances, and, in turn, the expellee accord the same degree of
>> respect to the club.
>
> Note that when expulsions are under consideration, everybody is pretty
> pissed off.

Precisely why everyone concerned should take "a bit of a breather", not
act on impulse, spend time apart and when sufficiently calm, go through
all the facts that led to the recommendation of expulsion...and try to
work towards a solution that, if possible, does not involve expulsion.

It's hard, we're human, we're not perfect...but we have to try, really
we do.

>> I'm still leaning towards removing the option of resignation, however,
>> which, by the way, is something any member can do anyhow (whether or not
>> there is a "threat of expulsion" and regardless of whether the provision
>> in 4.3.2 exists or not).
>
> Incorrect. If the exec can expel a member prior to giving him/her the
> option of resigning instead of undergoing imminent expulsion, the member
> cannot then resign to avoid expulsion as he/she is no longer a member.

Hmm...dignity aside, there's still little chance of the member remaining
as such by this stage.

Personally, I believe the appeals process (Executive meeting, then SGM)
sans resignation, is adequate.

>> The "vote" should be cast first by the Executive -- and it has to be
>> unanimous -- before an SGM could be called for the purposes of election/
>> formal dispute.
>
> OK, it's case 4 (exec no confidence vote) that's bothering me. You're
> actually introducing a means for the exec to fire an elected
> representative without having to go through formal expulsion under the
> guise of a provision for resolving vacancies:
>
>     * It is never, ever OK for the exec to do this anyway.

"Never, ever". Those are VERY STRONG WORDS! (and with good reason, I guess)

What if an Executive member -- either by their own inactions or through
reasons beyond their control -- goes AWOL for several months and in that
time becomes incommunicado, either by flatly refusing to communicate with
the Executive or for reasons beyond their control?

What if an Executive member does, in fact, remain in contact with the
Executive, but has not formally resigned...yet, it is felt by the rest of
the Executive that they are either unwilling or incapable of carrying out
their duties for whatever reason?

Are these NOT grounds for the rest of the Executive to lose confidence in
their fellow member?

These cases are based on personal observation and experience -- by being
a member (regular and Executive) and by trawling the archives. It's not
entirely a theoretical concern.

The biggest risk of formally allowing motions of no confidence would be
allowing it to "get personal" i.e. the member subject to the motion might
feel it to be a slight against them as a person, rather than it being a
purely "professional" decision for the good of the club, although this
would be mitigated to some extent by making the motion *unanimous*
(if there is even a single dissenter, then there is no motion),
and furthermore, there would have to be a written explanation accompanying
the motion and signed by the petitioning Exec members of why the motion
is being made, reminding them that it is nothing personal and such a
motion can be challenged at an SGM.

>     * This is hiding a power with an abuse risk under another guise.

Which is...?

>     * Worse, this allows the exec to force the membership to reassert
>       its own choice.

As long as the Exec member subject to the motion is allowed to stand as
a candidate, and is allowed to justify to all why they should be allowed
to remain on the Exec, then I have no objection to this.

NB: if the motion is defeated by successful re-election of the "motioned
member" then, for the purposes of compliance with Section 5.4, the member
shall be considered to be continuing their current term, rather than
starting a new one. A new term, however, would commence for the new Exec
member, should the motion be carried.

A more extreme alternative would be to provide for the membership to lose
confidence in all, or part of, the sitting Executive, by obtaining a
significantly large number of signatories to initiate a recall election --
it's ProgSoc, California Style!

No...? At least there'd be no complacency on the Exec's part.

>>> It is the norm for organisational notices to require posting in a
>>> physical place;
>> There is a bulletin board in front of the ProgSoc room. This is where we
>> post our notices to other than this mailing list. It's a lot less
>> cluttered there! We have erected a notice that forbids anyone else other
>> than ProgSoc
>> and BiG (and, I guess, the University) from posting on 'our' notice
>> board
>> without prior consent from either club. Non-compliant posters and
>> (especially) advertising material are simply taken down.
>
> Sure, but this is not relevant.

Relevant, in so far as we *do* post announcements of events in a
"physical place". Just not on the Union notice board.

An alternate solution would be to eliminate "at Broadway" from the
requirements, and, for the purposes of compliance, deem 'our' notice
board to be "a Union notice board" (which, in all likelihood, probably
is). My original four amendments would now read:

"on a Union Notice Board and the Society's online services"

This would probably be more acceptable to the Union. Note the exclusion
of "and/or", and "a" instead of "the". We would therefore
have to do both.

>> WHY is it that only the four Trustee roles are required to be
>> defined, yet the other three do not? (Why should we adhere to this
>> traditional convention?)
>
> Again, the constitution deals with essential requirements for
> organisational governance; identifying and defining the trustees' role
> makes this standard, identifying and defining additional operational
> roles does not.
>
> The traditional conventions exist because thousands of organisations
> with the same underlying problems use the same solutions and, these in
> turn, because they work well.
>

Can't see how adding these role definitions would do the Society
any *harm*, though.

> (I'd suggest also that changes made merely for consistency need to be
> viewed with great suspicion; it is very likely that they are motivated
> by desires for order in the minds of proponents rather than the benefit
> of the Society. I feel the same pull, but suggest that it should be
> ignored much of the time if there's not demonstrable benefit in it.)

Again, can't see how adding these role definitions would do the Society
any harm.

>> Also, we need to revive the tradition of reading out each role at the
>> election at the AGM so that would-be candidates know what they're
>> getting
>> themselves into (and what it is they're supposed to be doing). We can do
>> this for the Trustees and CSO, but not the representatives (perhaps
>> something would need to be made up on the spot -- not good, IMO).

> OK, this absolutely _*isn't*_ the role of the constitution. To extend
> the programming metaphor, you're arguing about affordances in the
> user-interface while debating the design of the first stage boot loader;
> small, stripped to essentials and very rarely altered. We did go out of
> our way to ensure that it was comprehensible by anybody, but this does
> not mean that it should be confused with an operator's manual.

You misinterpreted. At *no* point did I say this tradition should be
codified in the Constitution! That'd be a bit much, to say the least.

This sort of thing would be left up to the Exec of the day to decide.
All I am suggesting is that -- at least at this AGM, but hopefully at
future ones -- we should read the roles out loud before voting.

I'm also for following proper meeting procedure to the letter and
compiling decent, readable minutes...but that's probably wishful thinking.

> It may make sense to develop an ProgSoc Exec manual to codify this sort
> of practice, and the exec-of-the-day's policies with respect to
> non-trustee positions, much as the GFA already does for administrators.
> Trying to cause the constitution to fill this role is serious scope creep.

I'm all for a manual :) In fact, I believe one of our Exec members -- not
mentioning names -- has compiled something resembling a 'manual' for
their own personal reference. Wouldn't mind, if upon leaving the Exec
(or even before!) they would "donate" their "manual" (overtly private stuff
redacted) for the sake of future Execs.

>> My understanding of VSU is that no student nor staff member of a
>> university shall be compelled, under *any* circumstances, to join and be
>> a
>> financial member of their university's union.
>
> Nobody is being compelled. Every staff-member/student is free not to be
> part of an affiliated club's exec. Every club is free not to seek
> affiliation with the Union.

...and it would definitely be in our best interests to remain affiliated,
what with maintaining our good relations with the uni (and our room and
Internet connection and all that)...

> By your reasoning the other benefits offered to Union members should
> also be available to non-members because otherwise people are being
> "compelled" to become members to obtain those benefits.

Not understanding you...

My understanding of what the Union provides today is that it should be of
benefit to all students and staff, regardless of whether they are members
of the Union or not.

>> It should be sufficient of
>> us to be supporting the Union by running clubs and other services for
>> the
>> benefit of the community on their behalf without an arbitrary number of
>> us
>> being compelled to pay monetary dues.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm just being naive...
>
> If you were running the Union then you would be free to make this
> choice. You aren't, so you're not. The Union gets to decide who gets to
> join/affiliate and on what terms. You get to decide whether you
> join/affiliate; this is the meaning of the term "voluntary".
>

Whatever. "Can't fight City Hall" and all that (not on your own, anyhow).
We'll probably end up with three AP members after the election, and if
not -- and if I'm elected -- then I'll join the Programme.

Ah, politics. Thou art a dirty beast...

>> In 2005, the phrase "of the Executive Committee" was abolished from
>> 5.3 (see [1])....
>
> Oops. This is very broken. I'd support a motion to revert this change;
> it's only the exec who should be excluded; this clause is purely an
> anti-corruption measure.

Regular members are also susceptible to corruption as are Executive members.

>>> Of course ProgSoc can pay
>>> non-exec members for services rendered if it chooses to;
>> Not any more. Only non-members can be paid.
>
> That's crazy. Really. Can anyone see a situation where the lack of this
> broadened exclusion would create a problem?
>

Name one.

...oh, then we can't use the services of another company a member might
belong to without paying them. Find someone else, then. An obvious
loop-hole to this would be -- if the company is sufficiently large -- to
just employ someone else from that company to carry out the necessary
task...or just *really, really beg* the member to allow the company to
donate their goods and services out of the kindness of their own hearts.

It should be binding on all members, IMO. What about the members of the
Admin team that may or may not be on the Exec, for example? Should we be
allowed to "remunerate" them "in money or money's worth"? It should be
understood that, like the Exec, they are volunteers serving their club and
thus should not be paid (other than with a beer, of course)...

That said, I think your proposal to revert the 2005 amendment should be put
forward for consideration at the AGM.

**********

We are planning to have an in-room Executive discussion on the matter of
Constitutional amendment tomorrow night (we would've done it last week, but
certain members had a prior engagement...)

Tom




More information about the Progsoc mailing list