Let's not get hung up on a word. I'm just using the term descriptively, I don't want to keep listing people's names. I've used 'senior officials', 'top officials' as well. It's the highest ranking figures in CS.
(Eg here, 3/4 of the Exec + grader, their support for these ideas goes back years - no-one else in management has commented).
Take your time Andy, I've no wish to wreck you! Someone else can deal with it perhaps.
Andy says "This is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is. It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP. Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP. "
Hm. Thinking about this raises interesting issues, so this isn't just a query to Andy.
The EWP was to produce proposals to be voted on at an SGM.
(An AGM would do of course, but it was meant to happen early in the year (2020).)
1) It wasn't the EWP that decided to get round the normal meaning of the constitution and have a vote without the general meeting that had always been the plan. It was higher management, and it was Jim W who gave me an explanation earlier in the thread.
This seems irregular, as the constitution seems to assume an AGM or SGM for a constitutional change.
Jim W says there is no rule in the constitution against it.
I thought the idea was that what the constitution indicates are the rules.
2) As noted, I don't think it was in the remit of the EWP to insert decisions directly into the eligibility procedures,
as Motion 1 accomplishes. It was always something that was going to be put to the members.
This wasn't changed by the EWP last time I looked, and does not seem a credible possibility anway.
So in some important respects this is not the EWP's doing.
The reality seems something like "Produced by management, directed by EWP, then altered by management."
3) The fait accompli in Motion 1 seems to result in another irregularity here:
The requirement for two-thirds of the vote to change the constitution normally pertains to votes for the proposal, versus votes against.
This isn't what we have here.
The decision to present the membership with a fait accompli on Motion 1 changes the balance of the vote so that the votes of those who wish to vote against the proposal will not be registered.
For instance, if you would have normally had, say,
40 votes to place the criteria in Motion 1 in the constitution,
15 to simply place it in the eligibility rules, and
10 to reject it,
then without 2/3 of the vote, the criteria would not be heading into the constitution, though it would become part of the rules.
But according to the Motion, those 10 above cannot vote to reject it, as that isn't an option.
So the criteria will head into the constitution unless 6 people out of that excluded 10 vote for an option they disagree with.
Not only does Motion 1 embed itself at least into the eligibility criteria; it kicks out, cuckoo-style, some of the natural opposition to it going in the constitution.
4) Is a motion that needs an external explanation of what a No vote entails valid?
No normally means...no, i.e. NOT that proposal.
The meaning of Motion 1 (plus explanation) is equivalent to an ordinary Yes/No vote, with the explanation that "If you vote No to putting it to the constitution, we will bring it back and put it in the criteria anyway".
Is this a valid way to treat a constitutional vote? For one, the 'threat' would influence the vote, without being part of that vote.
Doesn't seem right, to play with a constitution like this?
(Eg here, 3/4 of the Exec + grader, their support for these ideas goes back years - no-one else in management has commented).
Take your time Andy, I've no wish to wreck you! Someone else can deal with it perhaps.
Andy says "This is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is. It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP. Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP. "
Hm. Thinking about this raises interesting issues, so this isn't just a query to Andy.
The EWP was to produce proposals to be voted on at an SGM.
(An AGM would do of course, but it was meant to happen early in the year (2020).)
1) It wasn't the EWP that decided to get round the normal meaning of the constitution and have a vote without the general meeting that had always been the plan. It was higher management, and it was Jim W who gave me an explanation earlier in the thread.
This seems irregular, as the constitution seems to assume an AGM or SGM for a constitutional change.
Jim W says there is no rule in the constitution against it.
I thought the idea was that what the constitution indicates are the rules.
2) As noted, I don't think it was in the remit of the EWP to insert decisions directly into the eligibility procedures,
as Motion 1 accomplishes. It was always something that was going to be put to the members.
This wasn't changed by the EWP last time I looked, and does not seem a credible possibility anway.
So in some important respects this is not the EWP's doing.
The reality seems something like "Produced by management, directed by EWP, then altered by management."
3) The fait accompli in Motion 1 seems to result in another irregularity here:
The requirement for two-thirds of the vote to change the constitution normally pertains to votes for the proposal, versus votes against.
This isn't what we have here.
The decision to present the membership with a fait accompli on Motion 1 changes the balance of the vote so that the votes of those who wish to vote against the proposal will not be registered.
For instance, if you would have normally had, say,
40 votes to place the criteria in Motion 1 in the constitution,
15 to simply place it in the eligibility rules, and
10 to reject it,
then without 2/3 of the vote, the criteria would not be heading into the constitution, though it would become part of the rules.
But according to the Motion, those 10 above cannot vote to reject it, as that isn't an option.
So the criteria will head into the constitution unless 6 people out of that excluded 10 vote for an option they disagree with.
Not only does Motion 1 embed itself at least into the eligibility criteria; it kicks out, cuckoo-style, some of the natural opposition to it going in the constitution.
4) Is a motion that needs an external explanation of what a No vote entails valid?
No normally means...no, i.e. NOT that proposal.
The meaning of Motion 1 (plus explanation) is equivalent to an ordinary Yes/No vote, with the explanation that "If you vote No to putting it to the constitution, we will bring it back and put it in the criteria anyway".
Is this a valid way to treat a constitutional vote? For one, the 'threat' would influence the vote, without being part of that vote.
Doesn't seem right, to play with a constitution like this?