Home

TheSinner.net

Constitution

Your opportunity to discuss goings on in the Debating Society, recent debates or any issues you believe are important. Questions or queries can be addressed to the moderator at debates@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Constitution

Postby RobFett on Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:59 pm

What's the deal with this meeting about the constitution? What changes are being proposed?
RobFett
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Steveo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:23 pm

If it's anything like any of the changes made to various documents in the Association in my time as various positions, it'll be pointless and badly done.

I'll be there.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.
Get off my internet.
Steveo
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:03 pm

Re:

Postby Connie on Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:42 pm

Changes to the constitution are going to be made to make sure that changes that the current board have already brought in and have been passed at meeting are included in the constitution.
Things like, even though we are sending more teams to worlds as we get better, money is not channeled more into IV debating. Ensuring that there is a responsibility to find private sponsorship for certain expensive aspects of the society.
Making sure that positions have very clear remits. And clarifying what the consequences of not fulfiling those duties are.
We hope this meeting won't drag on for ages (after all, it is 5pm on Valentines Day)and that it won't be pointless or badly done.
If you're worrying that we're going to do anything awful then come along and have your say.

Connie
Connie
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:54 pm

Just a cautionary word, which hopefully is unnecessary, there is a real danger in over-legislating. A constitution should be as short and as general as possible and it should not compel subsequent years to change it again in order to do things their way. A lot of things can be done simply as Board resolutions that would have no place whatever in a formal constitution.

That advice goes for every committee in the Association, and in every other organisation! There's a lot to be said for ad hoc sub-committees and for de facto rules.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby David Bean on Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:30 pm

That's true. We used to have a book of statutes passed by the BoT, which were held to be binding until such time as they were overturned.

In any case, some of Connie's points appear to be slightly questionable. Were the second and third sentences designed to make the same point, i.e. there's a proposal to add sourcing sponsorship for IVs to the remit of the IV Secretary, or separate points, i.e. you're planning to add set funding requirement for IVs to the constitution? The latter would be a very bad idea, considering that no other constitution I've ever heard of imposes budgetary constraints, as funding requirements will naturally shift from year to year. Secondly, we've tried many times to implement measures to hold Board members to account for failing to fulfil their responsibilities, but it hasn't ever worked because such decisions are invariably highly politicised, and prone to abuse by someone who knows how to work the system (I know, I've done plenty of that myself). Instead, why can't the Board of Ten agree to assign responsibility to a certain member, minute that decision and then check later on to see whether they've done it or not? That won't help in cases where the individual persistently lies to you (as has also happened to me), but there's very little you can do in that situation anyway.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Jessica on Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:35 pm

The Constitution meeting will be next Wednesday, Feb 14th @ 5pm. The change will be the creation of an Internal Secretary and elimination of the Championship Secretary.

See you there!

Jessica
Jessica
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby David Bean on Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:12 pm

Is there any chance we could have a few more details? I'm not the kind of person to argue against worthwhile reforms, never have been, but I was chatting to Jonathan about some of the proposals last night and it seemed to me that there were a few points that had not been considered yet. It must be in the interests of the Society for there to be a more open exchange of views, including those of (dare I say it) good-natured veterans, than is possible in an afternoon's meeting, mustn't it? I just want to he^p you make sure you're going into this with your eyes open.

Oh well, I'll see some of you at the Refreshers Fair tomorrow.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Jessica on Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:58 pm

Of course we want this to be an open process. If you stop by the Refreshers Fayre you'll be able to pickup a sheet of paper about the Constitutional change. Obviously, everyone's welcome at the meeting on Wedns.(we're going to regret having put this one on Valentines Day, aren't we) and we'll discuss it in detail then. It's not really fair to have the entire exchange on the Internet instead of in the advertised meeting, as it may leave some people out.
Jessica
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Bonnie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting David Bean from 19:30, 14th Jan 2007
i.e. you're planning to add set funding requirement for IVs to the constitution? The latter would be a very bad idea, considering that no other constitution I've ever heard of imposes budgetary constraints, as funding requirements will naturally shift from year to year.



The State of Connecticut Constitution imposes budgetary constraints.
Bonnie
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Durham, CT USA

Re:

Postby Eliot Wilson on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:18 pm

Modelling the UDS after Connecticut? Novel idea. Still, we pay little enough attention to our supposedly modelling on Westminster, so why the hell not?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Eliot Wilson
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am

Re:

Postby Lid on Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:12 pm

Yes, Mr Wilson, I've always found it remarkable that in "British Parliamentary" I'V debating, comments are so often addressed to "ladies and gentlemen", whereas surely "Mr Speaker" would be so much more proper.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires
Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin
Lid
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:00 am

Do people address them to ladies and gentlemen? Tut. I always used to say "Mr/Madam Speaker" and sometimes further address myself to the Members of the House, they are not, as I have oft remarked, the audience.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Lid on Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting exnihilo from 09:00, 12th Feb 2007
Do people address them to ladies and gentlemen?


Oh, ad nauseum.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires
Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin
Lid
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re:

Postby Mr Comedy on Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:13 pm

And if we were being proper as well, we would not have 'proposition' and 'opposition', instead it should be 'government' and 'opposition'.
However, this is largely a stylistic issue, and personally I couldn't give a fig.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
Mr Comedy
 
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:43 pm

Re:

Postby David Bean on Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:31 pm

Unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to the Fair, so I suppose I might as well reiterate my comments to Jonathan.

I think that the idea of creating an internal secretary, whose remit would include sourcing speakers, is a dangerous one. For one thing the identity of any potential speakers is intrinsically linked with the motions, which are naturally chosen by the Convenor and often with certain speakers in mind. Therefore, either the internal secretary would have full control over the remit and potentially be able to derail a debate (by accident or design) by inviting the wrong speakers, or they would simply have to right to people suggested by the Convenor, in which case I can't see a sane person wanting to take the job.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, as things stand at the moment the Convener is essentially the 'promoter' of debates events, and it's their head on the line if a debate has to be canceled for any reason, or if, ultimately, there aren't a minimum of four speakers at the table when the debate started. If responsibility for booking speakers were given over to someone aside from the Convenor, I can think of at least two problems:
- It would be impossible to determine accountability for any debate that failed due to lack of speakers
- The Convenor would nevertheless ultimately be responsible for a direct failure of another person.

Now, I know that you could make some version of this argument for any other position on the BoT, but having spent a year as Convenor myself, and experienced debates where guests pulled out only hours in advance, the last thing I'd have wanted would have been to have to get in touch with my internal secretary - or, worse, wait for them to get in touch with me, if they were acting as the point of contact with the speaker - before getting replacements, and nor would I have wanted to trust this exceedingly delicate task to anyone else when it was my neck on the line. Imagine if the internal secretary was the main point of contact with speakers, and when someone pulled out, either didn't bother to arrange a replacement, or didn't hear about it, or went and got replacements behind the Convenor's back, or failed to inform the rest of the Board of Ten?

Moreover, the right to select who speaks in debates, whether from the table or from the chair, and the responsibility to do so fairly and in the best interests of the Society's membership, is one of the most important privileges and duties that the position of Convenor carries, and that's one of the reasons why the position is considered important enough to be elected on a cross-campus basis as part of the general election, and carry an officership on the SSC.

It seems to me that if the Convenor's job is going to be to arrange Parliament Hall debates, and if the arrangement of the debates should ultimately be their responsibility, then that's what the Convenor should do - arrange them, including the central responsibility of booking speakers and making sure they turn up. I think that to dilute this role by haphazardly spinning off the job of booking speakers is a mistake.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Bonnie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:29 am

I wasn't suggesting that such a modelling should be done. I was telling David of such a situation so that he could have heard of/ read of one.

I don't care what he does with the information. Budgetary constraints written into constitutions do happen. They're rare, but they have become quite politically popular recently.
Bonnie
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Durham, CT USA

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:23 am

Because increasingly politicians pander to ignorance and ignore utterly the principles upon which constitutions should be drawn up - as one moves further in time from the original framers the essence is lost ever more.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby John Stewart on Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm

Edinburgh used to have a "Macer", an officer in a similar role who was responsible for organising formal debates.

It was a dismal failure. Debates were awful, poorly thought out, and regularly cancelled. This was due to the removal of the society's most visible and important remit from its most visible and accountable officer.

I have a couple of reservations on this:

1. Opening up the possibility of horrific turf wars between the convenor and a another board member, and the general bitterness and politics that inevitably will follow. Your board may be one big happy family. Most are not, and the greater good of the society demands that you plan for this.

2. Why have a formal arrangement when an informal one would suffice (As David points out). If a given convenor does not wish the pressure of arranging a speaker or two, by all means delegate. But other convenors have both proved to vastly enjoy the role and to be incredibly successful at it, and should not necessarily have their hands tied. In any case, the buck should stop in one pair of hands.

You should only put things in the constitution if you think them critically necessary to the continuing health of the society. I'm not so sure this passes that test (although by all means beef up the Championship Secretary remit, this may not be the best way to do it. Always be wary of including disparate roles under a single title).
John Stewart
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:29 pm

Re:

Postby David Bean on Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:23 pm

Good on you, John.

So, what happened - did you decide to add this into the Constitution? Moreover, can someone please tell us what, exactly, the virtue of the idea is supposed to be? For a group of people so keen on having an open process, the Board of Ten have been very oddly silent on this here so far, and the reason I wanted to talk about it here in the first place is that a lot of us, many of whom frankly have a hell of a lot more experience in the UDS than you, couldn't have made it to the meeting yesterday and so wouldn't have had the chance to raise our concerns.

By the way, I'd like to remind people that any proposed changes to the Constitution must be ratified by the SSC, so if the Board of Ten insisted on the amendments without being able to rebut a reasonable set of opposing arguments, it's still possible to lobby the SSC to send it back with a big, fat 'VETO' stamp on the thing.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Lid on Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:04 am

I don't have wordings exactly, here, David, however, in summary:

Championship secretary scrapped, in favour of 'Internal Secretary', which encompasses the remit of Championship, with the additional responsibility to 'assist the Convenor in the sourcing of guest speakers for LPH debates'.

Of course, this means a change to the laws of the association, so not only can SSC veto it, but so can SAB and University Court. I think the chances of you getting that out of them are akin to urination and the beaufort scale though.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires
Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin
Lid
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Next

Return to Union Debating Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron