Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS conference, AGM, reform

[Alex Hudson]

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 18:53 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> 6b does not say "all members of the Committee shall be elected at AGM."
> If it did, all the stuff about casual vacancies and co-option in clause
> 6 vanishes. 

No, it doesn't vanish; what it says is this (abridged):

6a. A committee will run AFFS day-to-day
6b. Committee will be elected at AGM (see clause 9)
...
6e. *In addition* to those elected and serving, ctte may co-opt up to
three further members

So, co-option isn't at odds with election - it's in addition to. The
stuff about casual vacancies *is* slightly contradictory - if you can
assume you have a vacancy, you can effectively loophole through the
restrictions in co-opted members (they are roughly the same thing) - but
that's beside the point. Neither clause has anything to do with
elections.

Therefore, I disagree my assertion is absurd - it doesn't render the
constitution contradictory at all. Note, also, that the constitution has
no further "In addition to [those so elected]" - i.e., it doesn't
recognise members elected outside AGM or any other ways of getting onto
committee beyond those it specifically enumerates.

> A notice of nomination given now would be more than 10 days before
> the AGM.

If the constitution allows us to accept nominations 355 days a year, I
believe we should fix that bug rather than use it to hack on an "elect
whenever we like under whatever rules we like" SO.

> Where is the section on quoracy of election?

The quoracy of the AGM, since elections are held at AGM.

> So, I really think ctte should approve election rules as soon as
> possible, to answer the "How?" questions and avoid past problems
> recurring.

I agree we should have rules. But I believe any rules we make regarding
non-AGM elections are clearly unconstitutional. The constitution sets a
base standard for how elections are to be held - why should the rules to
get elected outside an AGM be much different to within one? If we
believe that it's constitutional to hold an election outside of an AGM
(because the constitution is silent on the matter), it's surely also
constitutional to hold it with five minutes' notice, nominations on a
beer mat and a quoracy of two (because the constitution is silent on the
matter).

To summarise, if we cannot hold elections outside an AGM, that's a
problem we need to fix. If we can, there is a gaping hole in the
democratic safety of AFFS as an organisation, and that's a problem we
need to fix. Either way, it's a problem. I don't see any reason why this
cannot be cleared up with an amendment to make it crystal clear; is
there any reason you have to oppose that?

I strongly believe the constitution allows AGM-only elections (deferable
to a postal ballot under certain conditions). Retirement is annual,
co-option and filling of vacancies lasts until AGM, nominations happen
before AGM, etc. It all revolves around AGM.

> It's not "a lame-duck committee". It's just not complete. They could
> still take valid decisions because 6g clearly says failure to elect
> shan't invalidate the proceedings.

Indeed it does, and I admit that the committee could continue to run.
But it would not be a committee with any kind of mandate from the
membership, so whether they could *morally* take decisions is dubious. A
committee that is incomplete and cannot call an election may not be a
lame duck committee to your thinking; it certainly is to mine.

Cheers,

Alex.