[ProgSoc] Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017

Tomislav Bozic 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 
without renewal.

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 
point anyway.

> I’m also curious if the clause 5.1.7.1 (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 
Dramatic Chipmunk...)

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[1]. Raz explains why we got 
rid of it here: [2] (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 5.1.7.1

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.

Tom

---

[1] 
http://progsoc.org/wiki/Constitution_Amendments_1996#Proposed_Amendment_10_.28Abolition_of_Executive_Committee_Meetings.29

[2] http://raz.cx/progsoc/const-amend-19960722.html
-----------------------------------------------------

To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me...



More information about the Progsoc mailing list