[ProgSoc] Motion to amend constitution: Competitions Officer

Pat Morgan patwm18 at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 2 11:29:54 EST 2013


I understand where you're coming from Peter but if I may add my own two cents, I can't quite agree. 

The VP doesn't seem to have enough duties as it is, and there appears to be plenty of executive scope to cover the role of organising competitions. No other club uses a competitions officer, preferring to share the fun of running them.

As for failing to organise a competition or keep it going, that's the responsibility of the exec to avoid. It might provide a single point of blame for failures but it shouldn't be needed  For example, I do not excuse the exec for failing to hold a Christmas party because there was no Party officer. 

On 02/03/2013, at 7:38 AM, "Peter Revelant" <revelant at progsoc.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anand Kumria <akumria at acm.org> wrote:
>> Why can't this be made the duty of the VP?
>> 
>> Especially as you note that this is to ensure continuity and the competition
>> actually occurring?
> 
> Especially because I want to ensure continuity and the competition
> actually occurring! The VP has other duties and so if they do most of
> those and the competition goes by the wayside, people might still feel
> they have done a reasonable job. The competitions officer has one
> single function, so if the competition is not held it will be clear
> that he or she has not performed the duty assigned to them.
> 
> And the other reasons I wrote previously all still stand in answer to
> your question. I have a question for you: why *should* it be made the
> duty of the VP?
> 
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Progsoc mailing list
> Progsoc at progsoc.org
> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc



More information about the Progsoc mailing list