At least year’s congress, it was determined that we should review our constitution for issues, and try to clean it up.
In particular, I remember some ambiguous wording regarding the election of Dispute Resolution Committee members, and there were some other issues raised as well.
I’ve been putting this process off for a while, so I’d like to get it started now, so we’ve got time to put amendments to the congress, which must be done about a month in advance.
I’ll organize an IRC meeting for approximately 2 weeks from now, so if you’d like to either be part of the review, or have seen areas where you have suggestions for improvement or clarifications, please let me know, and tell me if you have times that you prefer or cannot do for meetings.
Some issues I would like considered, and would consider with the Committee:
- Expanding the Dispute Resolution Committee into more of an Oversight Board, akin to the Board of Governors in PPUK, which serves to interpret the Constitution and resolve member disputes. Also ensure a continuance of institutional knowledge, which the DRC has also done (albeit in a minimal fashion due to never being needed!),
- Whether specific provisions for employing persons should be implemented, and
- Whether or not one of the two models of paid employee should be considered for day to day operations:
- Executive Officer as an employee of the Party, hired by tender on a contractual basis, subservient to the National Council, or
- Party Leader as an employee of the Party, directed elected by the members, leads the National Council and the Party.
@dcrafti, set a date for this meeting please.
I haven’t received any preferences for meeting times, so I’m going to say this
Thursday, April 2nd, at 8:30pm.
EDIT: Tuesday April, 7th at 8:30pm.
Sounds good. #ppau-crc is now registered on IRC, so that’s where we’ll be.
Not sure if I’ll be around for the meeting, so here’s one issue I noticed in the constitution regarding membership categories.
We’ve had a few questions recently about how people can support the party if they are registered with another party. I understand this is covered by the Associate membership category, but that’s not clear in the constitution. The eligibility section (4.1) as written should apply to both full and associate members and it explicitly states that members must not be registered with other parties.
Also, all full members should be enrolled to vote. This isn’t actually listed as a requirement in the constitution, though members must agree to it on the join form.
So I propose an amendment to the Eligibility section to include the enrolment requirement and also state that the requirements are for full members, and an addition to 4.2.2 to clarify that associate membership is open to anyone.
Actually, sorry, but I’m changing it to Tuesday 7th April.
I was already booked in for Thursday and just got prompted about it.