27-06-2015, 12:39 PM
I have one overall Q.
Do we really need a mysterious 'Council' ... as well as an 'Executive' Cee, itself comprising President, Directors AND membership delegates (presumably 'elected') - see the organisation chart provided - that is moreover itself called to democratic account, as most such executive bodies, by the entire wider membership at AGMs / SGMs?
Isn't this rather old-fashioned and (I think) certainly untypical of similar sports organisations, even if unincorporated like CS? Has anyone looked at appropriate (sports or other organisational) comparators?
Clearly 'Council' is conceived as some sort of 'democratic' counterweight to the 'Executive Cee' (currently CS Board of Directors), but I'd have thought the point of incorporating elected membership delegates on to the Executive Cee was meant to provide that anyway.
I'd also have thought that the best way to streamline the current constitution, which has always had this slightly uncomfortable, two possible masters (Council and CS Board) element in it, would have been to phase out any perceived democratic deficit(s) that Council (still) represented but was (were) not yet clearly covered by the CS Board / new Executive Cee and transfer them to the Board /Exec Cee.
If the presumably elected Executive Cee 'membership delegates' don't already guarantee full democratic transfer, what else should be transferred, and how to do that, are useful matters for debate. But why continue to confuse matters in CS by continuing to have two possible masters?
Think of the elected Directors. They make a pitch (hopefully!) before election by the entire membership at an AGM (democratic, yes), work hard on a budgeted plan in conjunction with the Executive Cee (or Board), only to find that that approval might be thrown out 6 months later by a 'Council' that doesn't have any real executive responsibility as Directors do.
This isn't really how most Directors are called to account in the real world. Most Directors do wish (really!) to reflect members' views in their plans but this democratic confusion doesn't really help.
Hope helpful
Do we really need a mysterious 'Council' ... as well as an 'Executive' Cee, itself comprising President, Directors AND membership delegates (presumably 'elected') - see the organisation chart provided - that is moreover itself called to democratic account, as most such executive bodies, by the entire wider membership at AGMs / SGMs?
Isn't this rather old-fashioned and (I think) certainly untypical of similar sports organisations, even if unincorporated like CS? Has anyone looked at appropriate (sports or other organisational) comparators?
Clearly 'Council' is conceived as some sort of 'democratic' counterweight to the 'Executive Cee' (currently CS Board of Directors), but I'd have thought the point of incorporating elected membership delegates on to the Executive Cee was meant to provide that anyway.
I'd also have thought that the best way to streamline the current constitution, which has always had this slightly uncomfortable, two possible masters (Council and CS Board) element in it, would have been to phase out any perceived democratic deficit(s) that Council (still) represented but was (were) not yet clearly covered by the CS Board / new Executive Cee and transfer them to the Board /Exec Cee.
If the presumably elected Executive Cee 'membership delegates' don't already guarantee full democratic transfer, what else should be transferred, and how to do that, are useful matters for debate. But why continue to confuse matters in CS by continuing to have two possible masters?
Think of the elected Directors. They make a pitch (hopefully!) before election by the entire membership at an AGM (democratic, yes), work hard on a budgeted plan in conjunction with the Executive Cee (or Board), only to find that that approval might be thrown out 6 months later by a 'Council' that doesn't have any real executive responsibility as Directors do.
This isn't really how most Directors are called to account in the real world. Most Directors do wish (really!) to reflect members' views in their plans but this democratic confusion doesn't really help.
Hope helpful