--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dilwyn Jones" <dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:30 PM
To: <ql-us...@q-v-d.com>
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Reality Check
<speaking as member D.Jones, not as committee member for this email>
Of course, but the most important thing is sorting out the current
situation as regards the wording (which has with the benefit of hindsight,
proved to be, umm, not quite satisfactory) of the committee officers term
of office.
The rest of it isn't too bad as it stands in my opinion, but certainly if
anyone has concerns about other areas and we can get a group to look at
it, why not!
It is not just a simple matter of tidying up the words. Several people in
this discussion have suggested amending the constitution and that could mean
substantial change. Although only one person has stated it explicitly I have
the impression that people are saying that we should look again at the 2005
amendments.
There is another point. I have seen many constitutions and I have never seen
one that is an undemocratic as Quanta's constitution. I have never seen one
that gives so much power to the executive and so little to the members. The
Quanta constitution wants the members to be like little children, seen but
not heard. If the constitution wants us to be passive then it is our right
as members to be apathetic.
This constitution may have been appropriate when Quanta was first formed
when it had a membership of over 2000 and the fastest means of communication
were expensive and time consuming long distance telephone calls. In those
days Quanta could not have survived as a democracy and needed authoritarian
leadership. It is totally inappropriate for today when the organisation is
much smaller and fast communication by email is possible.
However, instead of becoming more democratic practically all the
constitutional amendments in recent years have increased the powers of the
officers at the expense of the ordinary members. Two of the present three
officers have actively supported this further restriction on democracy.
Until 2005 an item on the agenda of the AGM was always "Any Other Business".
When John Mason became chairman he ruled that "Any Other Business" was
unconstitutional. Instead we now have an "open discussion" which does not
have decision making powers. The present officers have continued this
policy. Can you name me any other organisation that forbids "Any Other
Business" at its AGM?
If a member proposes a motion or constitutional amendment for the AGM the
committee have the power to amend it. The members have no power to amend a
committee resolution or constitutional amendment. On the occasions when a
member has tried to propose an amendment at the AGM it has been ruled
unconstitutional.
If the members want to call a special meeting they have to obtain the
signatures of over half the members and pay a deposit of £500.
Quanta is not a democracy and on occasions the officers behave like
dictators. Before accusing the members of apathy, the officers should ask
themselves how far they are responsible for that.
To all those people who have asked me to stand again for office in Quanta,
the answer is no. I wish to have no official role in Quanta until I am
satisfied that the officers intend to make the organisation a democracy,
Best Wishes,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
