[ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017
tomchristmas at progsoc.org
Sat Nov 25 22:51:11 AEDT 2017
On 25/11/17 14:09, Brenton Smith wrote:
> There is always a minor uptick in membership around the AGM however, so
> I think the proposed changes to 4.2.5 (Membership) may result in a
> strange scenario where a single membership payment entitles a member to
> vote in two consecutive AGMs.
...yeah, someone could become a member or renew at the AGM of one year,
then, thanks to clause 4.3.1. they could vote again at the next AGM
Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? Besides, since they'd likely be
in arrears, albeit by only a few days, they would probably renew at that
> I’m also curious if the clause 126.96.36.199 (tied votes) is worth retaining,
> while a tie shouldn’t be possible in a five-member executive, I’m not
> sure if we can always rely on the participation of every executive
> member in every vote.
Yeah, someone could abstain from a vote thus causing a tie (what if the
president abstained and it was a tie!? Cue the Four Horsemen and the
But again, the Executive's internal affairs should be a matter for the
Executive and not the Constitution. Resolve their own ties and deadlocks
as they see fit -- that's how they should be.
Sidenote: prior to 1996, we used to have a constitutional definition for
Executive meetings. Then we got rid of it. Raz explains why we got
rid of it here:  (scroll down to "That clause 7.6 be deleted."). The
sentence "We believe that it is appropriate that the Executive Committee
regulate itself in this regard." pretty much echoes my sentiment
pertaining to 188.8.131.52
On 25 November 2017 at 12:53, Jenny Nguyen <knockycode at progsoc.org
> <mailto:knockycode at progsoc.org>> wrote:
> All the other amendments sound good too. I say that if no one offers
> suggestions for alterations within seven (7) days -- so by Saturday 2nd
> of Dec -- these amendments should be put into place. Would you be OK in
> applying these amendments if they are to go ahead on that day, Tom?
> Thank you for bringing these suggested amendments forward!
As Brenton said:
"Per clause 8.1, we’ll need to make these amendments at the AGM or an SGM."
There is actually a Constitutional method to follow in order to modify
the Constitution -- funny that!
My posting of these proposals to the list do not constitute a formal
Section 8.2 amendment submission. It was merely intended as an informal
discussion of my proposals.
An SGM for this would be best at the appropriate time, early next year.
To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me...
More information about the Progsoc