Timetable of events

[paul.blitz]

The committee would like to let you all have a feel for what formal discussion / polls are planned in the next month or so, so here is a list:

1) discussion on a new constitution / standing orders (start Fri 6th Feb)

2) vote on above (Fri 13th to 20th Feb)

3) call for nominations for post of Chairman (end feb)

4) vote for chairman (7 days later)

5) discussion on membership types (eg voting / non-voting) and eligibility (may take several weeks)

6) modify the constitution etc to reflect that discussion


A few notes on the above

1) & 2) the electorate for this will be as for the guidelines: members who have joined before the discussion starts will be allowed to vote.

3) please start thinking now if you would like to stand for the post of chairman. Please don't be put off by someone else standing. The post of chairman is in many ways rather undefined, and much of the "job" would be what you wish to make of it.

(If one of the current committee should stand & win, then there would obviously be a vote at some point to fill THAT vacancy)

5) There will be a LOT to discuss on this: please hold off until the other items are "out of the way" before starting on this one...
(For this reason the planned constitution / standing orders will NOT define what a "voting member" will be, but we will formally change those documents after the discussion has finished)

We feel that defining membership is very important, so we want the discussion to take as long as it takes, and then when there seems to be a consensus, we'll run a poll. If you still don't like it, then we'll just have to discuss more & run another poll!!

Paul Blitz
GAGB Committee

[MCL]

This seems the best place to post a little matter that came up in discussions at the recent Winchester cache bash.

A group of us were discussing the constitution and the mechansim by which it comes into being. Some smart alec who shall remain nameless (not me&#33 then pointed out (quite correctly) that once the constitution as currently written is "activated" (for want of a better word), then the existing committee is technically out of a job.

Why is this? Simply because the constitution dictates how a committee runs the organisation, and how that committee is elected. Any committee elected under that constitution is deemed "constitutional" and is legitimately allowed to run the GAGB. In fact it is the ONLY committee that the constitution gives any power to.

But the current committee were *not* elected under that constitution, and therefore are *not* the constitutional committee. The moment the constitution comes into force, there will be no constitutional committee until one is elected under the constitution. The current committee is technically known as an ad-hoc one.

There is in reality nothing wrong with this situation, but it needs fixing, and the normal practice here would be to (quickly) have a fresh election, under the new constitution, for a new committee, which in practice would almost certainly be the same people standing and presumably winning.

An alternative course of action and probably easier for everyone, is to write an extra line into the constitution before it is ratified, which states that the first committee shall consist of the existing ad-hoc committee until the first set of November elections.

I would prefer the second option myself, since I don't think the general membership has the stomach for another set of committee elections so soon, but I hope you can see the reason for raising the point.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Originally posted by MCL@Feb 2 2004, 02:09 AM


An alternative course of action and probably easier for everyone, is to write an extra line into the constitution before it is ratified, which states that the first committee shall consist of the existing ad-hoc committee until the first set of November elections.

I would prefer the second option myself, since I don't think the general membership has the stomach for another set of committee elections so soon, but I hope you can see the reason for raising the point.

I for one am happy to go allong with this. Why rock the boat, when it's sailing on smooth water. Come November I'll be voting for the current committie members is they stand for election. Dave

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by MCL@Feb 2 2004, 02:09 AM
An alternative course of action and probably easier for everyone, is to write an extra line into the constitution before it is ratified, which states that the first committee shall consist of the existing ad-hoc committee until the first set of November elections.

Funnily enough, the model constitution I am using for the new constitution has that concept in it, although I actually deleted it.

But, if it stops people getting pedantic, I'll happily reinstate an editted paragraph to state that the existing committee "as named below" will remain in office until the next election.


Paul

[Omally]

Nah, let's have another election. We all enjoyed it soooo much last time...

</kidding, honest>

[NattyBooshka]

well... if we have another election, it&#39;ll be almost November by the time it&#39;s over and then time for an election again&#33;