On 29/01/2011 12:54, Geoff Wicks wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Mellor" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:05 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
I don't want to become embroiled in the discussions over the
constitution of Quanta and without seeing the minutes of the meeting
at the end of the AGM, I presume that the committee co-opted John
under article 5.8 which says that
"The Committee shall have power to fill vacancies by co-opting
ordinary members to the Committee. Such members shall have a vote in
committee and shall serve until the next Annual General Meeting."
It does not say anywhere that the co-opted members cannot serve as
officers and vacancies is wide enough to be interpreted as meaning
three officers and not more than 6 other committee members, unless I
am missing something, but I agree that the constitution is badly worded.
With respect the answer is already there. Clause 5.8 says specifically
"ordinary members". The 2005 amendments created a structural
difference between "ordinary members" and "officers" of the committee.
Perhaps one of the lessons of this is that constitutional amendments
should never be railroaded through without proper discussion. I was a
member of the committee at the time and even we ordinary members of
the committee were given just 10 minutes notice of the proposed
amendments on a "take it or leave it" basis,
Best Wishes,
Geoff
Best Wishes,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Hi Geoff,
Actually, I disagree and this is where the constitution is badly worded
- ordinary members is also used to describe members of Quanta, not just
the committee and I would therefore interpret this clause to mean that
the Committee can fill vacancies by [co-opting members of Quanta] to the
Committee - ordinary members is used in clause 4.1 to refer to the
membership of Quanta (or are you suggesting that only the spouse of
officers could ever be an associate member?
In fact the wording of clause 5.0 uses the term 'other members' to refer
to the members of the committee who are not officers - nowhere is the
term 'ordinary members' used in this sense.
- It's discussions like this that I used to love when I was a solicitor
and/or company secretary - invariably the person asking the question
never wants to hear the official answer which always has to be "well it
CAN be interpreted as...." - nothing is ever definite when it comes to
the law, that's why in pages of legal documentation, you never see full
stops, commas, or semicolons - it leaves it more open to interpretation
- and more money for the solicitors!
--
Rich Mellor
RWAP Services
http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
http://www.rwapservices.co.uk
-- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
