Return to article

Talk: Rules

Revision as of 03:24, 12 January 2009 by Pfctdayelise (talk | contribs) (→‎Standing for more than one position on Committee: reply)

Ideas for Rule changes

I am collecting together ideas for rule changes. These could then be made together at one Special General Meeting or at an AGM, so approval by ChapCom and CAV is done in one hit (and one expense with CAV). They will need developing into specific amendments at a later stage.

Ordinary members of Committee

adding 2 more Ordinary Member positions

I agree there should be more, but they should be centre bias seats, with the recent PowerHouse proposal if the committee had a local person then the committee/WM-au is able to take an active role in organising the event. I understand that we are a national body and as such it shouldn't matter where people are but we cant afford to say to an outside request "you'll need to get someone there involved because we cant/wont tell people they have to". Gnangarra 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing for more than one position on Committee

There was that rule we came up against this past week regarding people submitting their name for election for a specific position, not being able to then submit their name for the ordinary member position in the event that they do not get elected to the specific position.

I clearly remember discussing this last year and we agreed that we would allow people to run for multiple positions and then withdraw for the subsequent position if elected to the first.

How would that work with voting by memberdb? I do not see from the AGM how we can have withdrawn a candidate and recounted, or at least not quickly. Bduke 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how it would work with the memberdb as I know absolutely nothing about how that works but if it isn't viable to withdraw a candidate or have the seat go to the next person then we should perhaps consider looking into other methods of voting.Sarah 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Memberdb handles people running for multiple positions just fine - the positions are drawn in a particular order and as soon as you have won one position you are automatically excluded from all the following ones. --Brianna (pfctdayelise) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we still need a limit of some kind, maybe one executive position and the general committee, close memberdb before/as the meeting commences. Then make provision(time) within the Agenda by announcing the exec positions earlier then reopen memberdb for those that wish to alter their votes for the GC seats. Gnangarra 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that members would have to chose one executive position, but could also nominate for an ordinary member of committee position, but the problem with voting is to cancel all votes for a person standing as an ordinary member if they were elected to an exective position, rather than allowing people to change votes. Some people may have voted and would not be at the meeting and their vote would have to be removed or altered, otherwise it might cause problems. Could any expert on memberdb comment? --Bduke 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)