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

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 23:44 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > Well, I'm not sure why we should restrict ourselves to one election per
> > year post an AGM; I would still prefer a situation where we can call an
> > election whenever one is needed. [...]
> 
> Couldn't the committee already choose to use election rules
> to select who is co-opted or who fills casual vacancies?

Co-option/casual vacancies (the fact there is a difference between the
two smells a little) are different to being elected. Your term of
office, etc., is different. The choice of having an election should be
there in my opinion - having ctte "choose" to run an election results in
no practical difference to the members, except their voice is given less
weight (because they have to re-visit their decision at the next AGM). I
think we should just do it properly.

> > The above would probably work, though. But it does pose one problem:
> > honorary officers. We still cannot elect those without an AGM (5a), and
> > one of those is our Treasurer. [...]
> 
> 5a says "may elect" rather than must or will or anything. 

I think I pointed out that out in the part you snipped of my original
e-mail.

> It's only Secretary that has any constitutional role, so I'd only
> prefix or dishonour(?) that one. Is it worth doing more?

Yes, I think it is - it's confusing otherwise. If someone has a title
that is set out in the constitution, they should have been elected in
the manner specified. To remove confusion (e.g., about their term of
office, when they can be re-elected) and to consistently name
honoraries, I think they should all be re-named. If we're not electing
them, we shouldn't have people with those titles.

The does raise the question of whether or not the title of Secretary
should be re-named outside of 5b; I would argue it should not.

> > I would still like to remove "PROVIDED THAT ..." from 6d. too. Do you
> > see any reason to keep it?
> 
> Is it necessary and if 6d is being edited, is it better to lose
> everything following the "OR"?

The 6d. edit appears to be about when the AGM election process fails. If
there is no failure, we still might want to run it as a postal election.

"PROVIDED THAT.. " seems like droppable dead wood to me. In the spirit
of minimal edits, "OR ..." doesn't. I would keep postal ballots and just
make it clear we can run them if we like.

Cheers,

Alex.