Re: comments re: AUP

Roland John Turner (rjturner@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au)
Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:19:35 +1000 (EST)

Alister Air wrote:

> I agree with this in part, but I feel that members should have the right
> to take an appeal as far as possible... in this case, to the membership,
> who elects the executive. An exec meeting could decide something either
> unfairly or without knowing the full extent of the story with a 2-2
> decision, with a chair exercising both a substantive and a casting vote
> (meeting-talk here). You could (yes, theoretically) then have unfair
> decisions on members made by two people out of a membership of 400+ (or so
> I've been told). Realistically, I do not imagine this happening in the
> near future. But it could... quite easily.

I aluded to this earlier but didn't spell it out. Again, ProgSoc's structure
is such that any member who is unhappy with the exec's behaviour can
ultimately appeal to the membership. First we have a mailing list that
interested readers do read. Second, a VERY small number of members can
call an SGM to, for example, move a vote of no confidence in the
executive. What would happen there is not codified in our constitution,
but the membership could, ultimately, remove a corrupt executive if
all attempts at reason failed.

Understand that this would be very damaging to ProgSoc and something that
I probably do not want to investigate too far, other than to say that
avenues do exist to resolve such problems.

(Perhaps less damage would be inflicted if the dissatisfied member
brought about an SGM to hear a motion the (s)he be re-allowed access
to the ProgSoc network. Many approaches exist.)

- Raz rjturner@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au

"It often upsets a man's God fantasies to have (Misquoted? from )
someone shoot down one of his helicopters." (Ben Elton's "Stark" )