[ProgSoc] Fwd: Constitutional Amendment Proposal Fest 2017

Tom Bozic tomchristmas at progsoc.org
Mon Nov 27 15:40:31 AEDT 2017


> Yes.
> 
> Tom
> 
> ---------
> To judiciously use split infinitives is fine by me
> 
>> On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:25, Liam Edwards-Playne <liamzebedee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Guys, has there been any activity whatsoever in this society to justify the needless bureaucracy?
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Tomislav Bozic <tomchristmas at progsoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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...
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Progsoc mailing list
>>> Progsoc at progsoc.org
>>> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20171127/a01e012b/attachment.html>


More information about the Progsoc mailing list