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

Tomislav Bozic tomchristmas at progsoc.org
Thu Oct 25 22:29:04 AEDT 2018

Hi Raz,

Fortunately, Proposed Amendment 4 was rejected by the membership for 
pretty much the reasons you stated.

Personally, my interpretation of "consensus" is one where a decision is 
made unanimously; if a unanimous decision cannot be made then further 
discussion and refinement takes place. I think this is basically how the 
now-just-dissolved Executive operated; to my knowledge, no formal voting 
process took place in Executive meetings.

I can see how retaining this clause *might* be useful as a fail-safe 
mechanism should things turn hairy, however. I can certainly live with 
its continued inclusion.

The next (and subsequent) Execs may wish to employ the "majority vote" 
formula in their decision making process. I maintain that they are still 
free to do this...or not.

Unfortunately (for you :P ), Proposed Amendment 7 passed. I stand by the 
stated reasons for its proposal.

All the other amendments also passed.

Not quite as upset as you about the comma that's gone to meet its maker, 
shuffled off its mortal coil, runned down its curtain, joined the choir 
invisible, etc. But it certainly had its charm and made UTS stand out 
from the crowd...


On 25/10/18 15:58, Roland Turner wrote:
> All,
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Progsoc mailing list
> Progsoc at progsoc.org
> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://progsoc.org/pipermail/progsoc/attachments/20181025/24067964/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Progsoc mailing list