On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Malcolm Cadman <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, gdgqler < > [email protected]> writes > >> >> On 7 Feb 2011, at 19:52, Geoff Wicks wrote: >> >> >>>> Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. >>>> >>>> >>> Now where did I hear that recently ;-) >>> >>> I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works >>> Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite >>> their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or >>> employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. >>> >>> As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and >>> experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed >>> another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. >>> >>> In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in >>> the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were >>> model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works >>> Council Law. In short in was a bit like "pick 'n' mix". >>> >>> Basically Quanta would have to do is: >>> >>> 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you >>> would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an >>> extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush >>> this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The >>> lesson of the 2005 amendments.) >>> >>> 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit >>> like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that >>> is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if >>> the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in >>> the drafting. >>> >>> 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need >>> further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing >>> the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we >>> should have a personal or list voting system and prepare a paper on the >>> merits and demerits of each. >>> >>> For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have >>> a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all >>> committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face >>> re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but >>> the committee and/or members. >>> >>> 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for >>> possible amendments, comments or objections. >>> >>> A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, >>> >>> >> When I was involved in producing a new constitution we got an expert to >> produce one "off the shelf". This was, in the main, OK but it had what I >> thought was a fatal flaw. It required the Committee members to retire after >> a period of, I think, 3 years and had to wait 1 year before they could be >> re-elected. I got that altered so that Committee members could stay on >> indefinitely, subject, of course, to being re-elected every 3 years. My >> reason for getting that alteration was that I thought it difficult enough to >> get anyone to do the voluntary work of being a Committee member. I reckon >> Quanta badly needs that change in the constitution. >> >> George >> > > Hi George, > > I agree with you, again ... :-) > > Good Board/Committee members are very hard to find. > > So, when you have them, it is best to keep them. > > As I commented in another email, it is best to have no "Time limits". > > With all Board/Committee members standing down every Year, and then > standing again (or not if they so choose). > > My community group will be holding its AGM, shortly, and this is what we > do. > > This will be out eleventh Year of operation, with a budget of over £100K a > Year. > > Being a Company Not for Profit and Limited by Guarantee, as well as a > Registered Charity. > > > -- > Malcolm Cadman > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > One organization of which I am a member does not have term limits, but handles it in an interesting way. The only reason for a term limit is to prevent people holding an office indefinitely due to "power" issues. This organization resolves it by allowing a vote FOR someone and a vote AGAINST someone. FOR votes add one, and AGAINST votes deduct one. This way, if an incumbent goes on long enough to start being closely opposed, dissatisfaction usually focuses the negative votes on them. The downside is if you have three candidates: two popular opposing candidates and a third minor player, the two groups of supporters invalidate the others' votes and the third entrant gets elected. Another (to me, better) way to resolve the issue is to allow someone to be elected past a term limit if they are unopposed. However, if they are opposed, that individual gets a go. Having only half the positions replaced each election allows some continuity. IMHO. Dave _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
