AGM and the new Board of Ten

[David Bean]

Congratulations to everyone who was elected. The turnout was a little low, that's true, but it's sometimes difficult to do anything about that - the AGM in my first year, for example, was even held in Parliament Hall after a debate, and still most people left.

Any chance of a preview of what some of the new Board members are planning to do with their roles?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Jessica]

I think I might make a few posters...



Nah, in all seriousness, a lot. Tons. But I'd kind of like to have a board meeting before spelling it all out. After all, I want to make sure I'm communicating the right things and not just what goes on in my silly colonial head!

[Jessica]

YAY!!

[exnihilo]

Well, there are five threads on the first page alone where I have requested information about the Society, either directly or that it should go on the website.

So how about starting there?

[Jessica]

I will indeed start with the website. Unfortunately I will not be able to put up the dates and motions for the rest of term until the board meeting. The sponsorship page is being revamped as we speak. Also there will be a page on the Balaka very soon. What other information would you like? If you'd like info regarding alumni relations I suggest you contact James Bouter.

[Dickie]

http://www.yourunion.net/debates/conten ... ?page=6000

Is it just me or has Tom taken the top off his head with Bessie?

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[exnihilo]

We shall see, we shall see. None of it happened over the last year, so time will tell.

[Lid]

Quoting Dickie from 18:18, 26th Mar 2007
http://www.yourunion.net/debates/conten ... ?page=6000

Is it just me or has Tom taken the top off his head with Bessie?

And let us not forget the missing X marking the spot, just above Chris Hawkins, the Treasure

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Dickie]

Quoting Lid from 00:25, 27th Mar 2007
Chris Hawkins, the Treasure
[hr]

Never mind I am sure that the new Comunications Sec. will solve all the problems of the WebSite.

Has a linkup been sent re. the next debate, on the 11th?

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Lid]

There's a debate on the 11th?

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Dickie]

Quoting Lid from 17:39, 27th Mar 2007
There's a debate on the 11th?

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

"April 11- This House Would Abolish the Monarchy"

http://www.yourunion.net/debates/conten ... ?page=6002

is what the WebSite says!
But I have not heard via Email as yet I think I will hear on April 10th... Well if the Com's Sec is giving as much notice a last year.




[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Lid]

It'll be a shame to have the Convenor's first debate of the year marred by points of order and then a suspension of the standing orders. You know it will happen.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Connie]

If Tom arranges a good debate then the two seconds of inconvenience caused by having to suspend the standing orders is not a big deal. in fact, with the amount of crazy tradition that has to go on at this debate, one extra point of order wil hardly make any difference at all.

[qwertghjkl]

Quoting Lid from 21:59, 27th Mar 2007
It'll be a shame to have the Convenor's first debate of the year marred by points of order and then a suspension of the standing orders. You know it will happen.

Well, all the speaker has to do is suspend at the beginning of the debate part 3.VI of the standing orders....

[Jamie potton]

Hopefully the standard of speakers will be high enough that the Standing Orders don't have to be suspended - the debate does not require the monarchy to be insulted, after all; just argued against! Who's speaking?

[exnihilo]

I fail to see why standing orders would need to be suspended. Indeed, if they are, it rather suggests a weak case by the Proposition, surely a case can be made against the monarchy without resorting to personal slurs and the like? A good case, within the standing orders, indeed.

(Edit: Beaten to it by one minute, curses!)

[David Bean]

I was shouted down for making this suggestion the last time, but can I please state that if Tom gets to the stage where he feels the standing orders are in danger of being breached but that such breaches are necessary for the continuing of the debate, that he should state, from the Chair, that the particular standing order referring to the Royal Family (and I'd quote it if I had a copy in front of me - he should check in advance) is suspended. He can do that without suspending the Standing Orders as a whole - they were written to ensure as much.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Who is speaking? Someone from the Strafford Club perhaps? Or maybe Iain Bradley?

[ChrisH]

Surely the quality of the speakers will not affect the need to suspend. For as soon as the floor debate opens there are bound to be "insulting" comments.

Unless this is some nefarious plot by Tom who never got to throw anyone out to embark upon a purge and let Bessie see some action...

[exnihilo]

A strong (and entertaining) argument against the monarchy can be made without breaching the standing orders. If a floor speech (and it will only be one or two) breaches the standing orders, the comments should be ruled out of order. I don't see the problem.