[ProgSoc] [PROGSOC-ANNOUNCE] 2018 Annual General Meeting -- 25th October

Roland Turner roland at rolandturner.com
Thu Oct 25 15:58:50 AEDT 2018


This is awesome, and apologies for not commenting sooner. I have not 
appointed a proxy, but all but two of the proposals have my full support:

*Proposed Amendment 4*

The proposal depends upon two false assumptions:

  * That all executive meetings are fully attended (or equivalently,
    that the quorum is all members of the executive). I would be
    astonished to learn that there had been any substantial run of
    fully-attended executive meetings but, even if there has been,
    embedding this assumption invites futile disputes when, inevitably,
    someone is absent.
  * That an executive unable to reach consensus (tied vote) is able to
    reach a consensus on the very same point (about how to break the
    tie). This is a basic logical error.

It might have been more useful to simply establish the quorum as being 
three members, including at least one of the president, vice-president, 
or secretary. However...

I _*strongly encourage*_ members to _*reject this proposal*_.


*Proposed Amendment 7

As with the language in 5.5.2 ("The Vice-President shall ... act as 
President in their absence."), this is about establishing precedence in 
a way that avoids futile disputes, and in particular avoids deadlocks. 
As above, this is an important safety valve for smoothing the path 
during rare but harmful situations.

I _*strongly encourage*_ members to _*reject this proposal*_.


*Other Thoughts*

I am very upset about the demise of the comma, but if officialdom exists 
<http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/publications/styleguide/uts.html> then I 
guess we're stuck with it.

Removal from executive of all but the basic five makes real sense. 
Delegations (key holders, liaisons) are a matter for the executive of 
the day in dealing with the situation of the society from time to time. 
For this reason, the description of the non-executive office holders 
should be a matter of executive discretion, so while it makes sense to 
publish a documented description of the current roster, it should not be 
titled Appendix A as that makes it look a loosely attached part of the 
constitution. I note that the proposed amendments merely refer to an 
Appendix in their rationale, they do not formally include it by reference.

Including a security clause at all appears unnecessary, but yes, the 
more generic language proposed is ...less inappropriate.

The audit clauses date all the way to the YUSP draft. Wow. No, I don't 
ever recall this happening.

Thanks for dealing with this!

- Raz


On 9/10/18 8:56 pm, Tomislav Bozic wrote:
> A message from our Secretary:
> -----
> Hi everyone,
> It's that time of year again, and UTS ProgSoc will be holding 
> elections and other general business at our Annual General Meeting.
> Date: 25th October 2018
> Time: 6pm
> Location: CB11.03.205
> For executive nominations, please email name + position to the mailing 
> list progsoc at progsoc.org OR alternatively contact the secretary or 
> president (president at progsoc.activateuts.com.au) if you need help 
> doing this.
> We would encourage anyone interested in helping stage hackathons, 
> competitions, educational events and social meetups next year to come 
> along and consider running for an executive position!
> https://www.facebook.com/events/2089813951334677
> 1. Apologies
> 2. Reading of the Minutes
> 3. Executive Reports
> 4. Constitution Amendments (see attached)
> 5. Elections
> 6. General business / unscheduled business
> Kind regards,
> Alex Munoz (ProgSoc Secretary)
> _______________________________________________
> Progsoc-announce mailing list
> Progsoc-announce at progsoc.org
> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc-announce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20181025/e703554c/attachment.html>

More information about the Progsoc mailing list