Proposed Revision of the Constitution, to be voted on at the AGM.

[Mark]

Hey guys, in 2006 an EGM was held to revamp the Club Constitution. The revised constitution was defeated on the grounds that those present didnt agree with merging the training officer and safety officer positions and creating a new outings officer for organising trips away.

I have made a few small changes to the 2006 proposal, which include leaving the committee as it is in its current form, and a few other minor changes in the rest of the document.

The idea is to hopefully get this constitution through at the AGM, with a view to setting up a situation where the Constitution can be looked at again next year, with the Committee structure as its focus.

Sections regarding the 8 Committee Positions that are up for election cannot be changed on the same night the committee is being elected. These have been left the same bar the odd grammatical correction. Senior Treasurer can be changed, as fuzzy has 2 years left of his 3 year term, so his position isn't up for election.

I am posting this to give everyone a chance to read the proposed changes before the AGM, and suggest any corrections or improvements that might be made to the document.

Note: You may ask why bother changing it if we are going to look at it again next year. Changing the committee structure tends to be a contentious issue, and as we learnt at the last attempt to change the constitution, a disagreement over this can mean that other, less contentious changes to the constitution also get voted down with it. This way we can get the easy changes out of the way, and then tackle the committee issue next year.

[kmck]

I think you'll find the club was founded in 1976, the founder got in contact and made that point. I would still say a three year term for a senior treasurer can give the club a continuty of purpose for three years and enable long term projects to be undertaken. However you could add an option that the senior treasurer is re appointed at the agm each year during that term unless a motion to dismiss is tabled. Such a motion would have to be tabled with cause and not just because of personality clashes.
It also would be better if each change was highlighted either in a list or in the normal way of stating the present version and the new ammended version beneath in italics
My own views on the size and structure of the committee are irrelevant, my views on how you run things are also irrelevant but are available to anyone who wants them to use to get a perspective of someone who has seen the committee in action for over ten years. Before that was trained in how to make committees work for the benift of their community. So if anyone wants that you can pm me or email me and I will send you on my thoughts.

[Evan]

Is it possible to propose changes to the draft? If so I would like to propose the following changes:

Section 3:
Bullet points be changed to 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4

Section 4 :
4.1 be changed to 4.1.1, 4.2 be changed to 4.1.2, 4.3 be changed to 4.1.3, 4.4 be changed to 4.1.4, 4.5 be changed to 4.1.5, 4.6 be changed to 4.1.6, 4.7 be changed to 4.1.7, 4.8 be changed to 4.1.8, 4.9 be changed to 4.3 and placed after 4.10, 4.10 be changed to 4.2 and be placed after 4.8
The role of the Senior Treasurer be set out as 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 instead of current bullet points

Section 5:
Bullet points under 5.1 be changed to 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5
Bullet points under 5.3 be changed to 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, 5.3.7, 5.3.8

Section 6:
Bullet points be changed to 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8

These are all small changes but it makes it easier to reference any part of the constitution, especially if people are going to be proposing changes next year if this years amendments are passed at the AGM

I'm also with Kieran on the whole italicising amendments to the constitution and clearly explaining in the draft what is being changed.

[Mark]

Evan, everything that has a number associated with it is a heading for a section, whereas the bullets point to paragraphs with no heading. Lumping the bullet points in with the section headings wouldn't really make sense. If it is felt that numbering these points might help, i could change the bullets to roman numerals or letters? I think the bullets look tidier, but I guess it's more important to be able to easily reference specific parts of the document.

Kieran - I'll change the date. I agree that club does need to review its committee structure, but it would not be possible or sensible to try and do that at the AGM where the committee is being elected, especially seeing as the AGM is so soon. I do intend to raise the possibility of reviewing the committee structure next year.


If I get a chance I will try and italicize all of the changes from the current constitution.

[Mark]

I forgot to add, regarding the Senior Treasurer, I didn't change that part of the document from 2006 proposal, but I feel it is an improvement over the 3 year term, as 3 years is a long time to commit to, but it leaves the (preferable) option for Senior Treasurer to serve for longer  than just 1 year.

[Evan]

I just think that it should be easier to reference than saying the third bullet point under section 4, especially if you intend to bring up changes soon. It just seems to make more sense to me

[Mark]

I've stuck up a poll, as I'm not sure if the lack of response is disinterest, or lack of issue with the proposed changes.

[Fuzzy]

I should have a response up for you tomorrow. I just haven't had a chance to go through the documents yet. I will probably be making a point similiar to evan's and i imagine i'll have comments on changes to my position.

[Simon R.]

i dont think too many people have a strong stance on the alteration of bullet points to numbers......................



can we look at the bigger picture?

[Monkey Loving Bob]

Mark,

it would probably be helpful if the reasoning for the proposed amendments was given. The details are important but largely irrelevant to the majority of people. If the aim of these amendments was made clear it would probably gain some support, this was part of the cause of it being voted down in 06/07.

Personally this looks like admin changes to me to help the committee run thing a little bit more smoothly, I would have no objection to them in this format. However I've never been on the committee, nor am I very active with the club these days so I will not be voting on this as it it is something for those actively involved in the club to concern themselves with.

C.

[Emmet]

How about instead of using bullit points or numerics we use pictures of our favorite animals?

eg.: "I disagree with point octopus but am in favour of point aardvark."

[Ley-Ley]

How about instead of using bullit points or numerics we use pictures of our favorite animals?

eg.: "I disagree with point octopus but am in favour of point aardvark."

You're favourite animals are an octopus and an aardvark? Wow.

[Mark]

How about instead of using bullit points or numerics we use pictures of our favorite animals?

eg.: "I disagree with point octopus but am in favour of point aardvark."

Fuck. Off.

[Simon R.]

nice............

[Evan]

So what happened with this?