| Topic: ammendments to constitution |
| ||
|
The following points might be needed to add to the constitution: 1. we need to not do the 'all other votes are yes votes' thing anymore. 2. introduce the idea of quarom, as long as its small - or we'll never get anywhere - say 3 votes is my thinking. 3. I looked what would happen if we had a tie, and the president is in a COI, there is no policy that says the vp gets the tie-breaking vote. The vote would just become null and void. Possibly we need to address this 4. What to do when a region's representative is in a COI - do we want another way for that region to have a vote. Do we want to do the same thing for the president's region? we'll have to vote in any amendments we create. any thoughts? |
Posted: Aug 3 2007 6:25AM
| ||
|
I agree with #1. It is too easy for people (not us obviously :)) to try to manipulate this system by knowing that a certain number of reps will not reply and thus wording votes in a certain way. Quorum - 3 people. I think the VP should get the tie-breaking vote... if the VP is also in COI, then the vote would be nulled. Another possibility is that when a rep is elected, they will name a delegate from their region (supply their name and email address). The delegate will be required to vote if the representative decides they are in COI. This way if the President is in COI, their delegate gets to vote. If the delegate also decides they are in COI, it goes to the VP or their delegate. Taha |
| ||
|
So what are people's thoughts on each rep appointing a 'delegate' that can be used when the rep is in COI, or even unavailable? Or shall the tie-breaking vote go to the VP, or if the VP is in COI, the vote becomes null? I have a copy of the constitution on my hard drive. It would be nice to make the changes and vote it in soon. Taha |
| ||
|
i fear the delegate would be an overused vote in the unavailable case. right now with the way current voting is going, we'd end up with roughly 4 exec votes, and 3 delegate votes. But i do like the idea of a delegate voting to represent the region that the president came from. In our example now, BC realy does not have a voice - other than being vocal on message boards, and other exec members from other areas choosing to listen - not optimal. I'm not aware of other groups that have a delegate vote when there's a COI - that person just no longer gets a vote - but we are in a unique situation where we could end up in COI quite often due to the fact that the exec members are also competitve players. So overall, i like the delegate only in the case of the president - for regional representation. I think the VP should get tie breaking vote when president is in COI - i dont think the presidents delegate (if one exists) should get the tie breaking vote Quorum - i'd agree with 3 - or better yet - nearest integer that is less than 1/2 of the number of executive members - so we wont have to change this wording if the size of the exec changes - as it will from year to year - as various regions get on and off board - or exec members resign. as for other exec members being in coi, and having a delegate vote, i'm not so sure on. If we are to name a delegate - then how should that work, when a president is chosen, they must name their delegate (from their region) - and the exec at that time has to vote to accept the delegate nomination. seems reasonable to me. |
| ||
|
I like the idea of the President having a delegate. That way the prez's area is represented in votes, and the prez only votes to break ties. So we've got.. 1- All votes have to be sent in. Anything not sent in is an abstain 2- A delegate for the president's region. 3- What do when the president can't give the tie-breaking vote because of COI 4- Quorum. A minimum number of votes that need to be sent in for a decision to be valid. anything else? Taha |
| ||
|
sounds good to me |
| ||
|
I'll make the changes and email it to you by Monday. We can vote the changes in next week. I will turn on "Track Changes" in the document so people can see what changes were made. In my email I will also summarize the changes so people don't have to go through whole document. Taha |
| ||
|
Sorry I suddenly got really busy. I'll get the new document to you as soon as I can. By the way as I was initially looking through the document, I discovered that there is nothing in there that says that votes that are not mailed in are considered "YES" votes. So there is no change that is needed for that. Taha |
| ||
|
yes, but the wording is not concise enough to enforce that both yes and no votes must be sent in. its was ambiguos enough for me to still stay within policy but start to use the 'only send in no votes' thing. |
This thread is a TSAC Exec thread that is displayed here as Read-Only.