RAO removal

Discuss our Party Constitution and any suggested amendments here

RAO removal

Postby azrael » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:16 pm

Remove all references to RAOs.

Remove: 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.9.3, 10.12, 10.14, 11.4

Amend: 10.1, 10.9.1
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby scuzzmonkey » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:34 pm

Justification being?
- Will Mac (@Scuzzmonkey)
- Governor (July 2010 - March 2012), PPUK
---
- "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
scuzzmonkey
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:55 pm

Justification for this constitutional change is that the NEC have voted to remove the positions of RAOs and that requires a constitutional change. :D
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby M2Ys4U » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:59 pm

As an RAO I suppose I should recuse myself from any votes on the matter...
Jack Allnutt - Deputy Campaigns Officer, Member of the Board of Governors and former RAO for North-West England
Tweet E-Mail
M2Ys4U
Deputy Campaigns Officer
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:12 am
Location: Manchester

Re: RAO removal

Postby cabalamat » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:31 am

azrael wrote:Justification for this constitutional change is that the NEC have voted to remove the positions of RAOs and that requires a constitutional change. :D


So can the NEC just change the constitution, or does it have to go through a vote of the party?
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:53 am

Duke is absolutely correct. Sorry for any confusion Cabalamat.

This does have to go through a member vote - and if members refuse to make the change, we'll keep RAOs. How well that will work when the NEC don't want them is debatable.

I strongly believe that something like the RAOs is necessary when we are much bigger, however it may have been too soon for us to have formalised them. The expectation is that we'll be leaner and more efficient locally rather than regionally - and this is a move to remove any potential hindrance to local activity.
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby scuzzmonkey » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:30 am

After a fairly extensive talk with SO and JA yesterday afternoon (some of which was emailed around) it has been made rather apparent that, regardless of NEC decision, the RAO section (9) needs to be re-written. This is for the following reasons.

1) 9.2 could be read that even against the wishes of the NEC - RAOs have to do the following; "the organisation of meetings, local campaigns and fund raising, support for Party candidates in their region, and co-ordinating with the National Campaigns Team." and whilst the implication is fairly clear (to me) that obviously this is more of a guideline of the position, rather than a YOU WILL DO THIS AS A MINIMUM, it is the constitution, and this not happening is technically unconstitutional - which technically means most (if not all) of our RAOs are currently breaking the const.

2) Whilst 9.3 allows for an increase and decrease in scope (that does not conflict with 9.2) it still implies that we need a "grand overseer" of an RAO to appoint these people in the first place - and it could be argued that Pirate Crews might conflict with this.

However, I am increasingly in two minds about whether RAOs (or a similar such position) actually requires that they be constitutionally defined, rather than just strictly codified and enforced.

-----------

Personally speaking in my capacity as a member, I would like to see the RAO's stay, as I believe that they are part of a required structure, and currently the best method of getting information from the NEC to the guys on the ground. A complete removal of RAOs, only to find out that 4 months from now we need them, is a massive waste of time - imo.
- Will Mac (@Scuzzmonkey)
- Governor (July 2010 - March 2012), PPUK
---
- "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
scuzzmonkey
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby ajehals » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:37 pm

azrael wrote:Duke is absolutely correct. Sorry for any confusion Cabalamat.

This does have to go through a member vote - and if members refuse to make the change, we'll keep RAOs. How well that will work when the NEC don't want them is debatable.


From my perspective, if a decision were made by the party to keep the RAO's, we would simply have to find a different way to address the issues this change was intended to fix. This is a decision for the party after all, although I would hope the board would take the NEC's position into account with regard to any recommendations made.

It would work because it has to :)
Andy Halsall - PPUK Campaigns Officer
User avatar
ajehals
Campaigns Officer
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:25 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: RAO removal

Postby lhsi » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:51 pm

If there is going to be a member vote, will there be more details released beforehand about why this should/shouldn't be done? (I'm mainly wanting to know the reasons for it)
User avatar
lhsi
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:43 pm
Location: Luton

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:06 pm

Not quite sure how to answer that one Ihsi.

This thread is for the discussion of the amendment rather than specifically a conversation of why this should/shouldn't be done.

That said part of discussing amendments is the reason for them - and not only if the wording is efficient to deliver what is intended.

I'm not sure if it would be more suitable to discuss this here or in a new thread - either way as this is an amendment resulting from an NEC request I would advise contacting the NEC to ask them for them to 'release details' or discuss in some way in a location they deem the most appropriate place (which may be here or in a new thread in the members forum).
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby lhsi » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:39 pm

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on the wiki page for NEC minutes to see if more information is posted there. If there's nothing there nearer the time of the voting I'll ask again, but probably in another thread to keep it separate from this one.
User avatar
lhsi
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:43 pm
Location: Luton

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:00 pm

After some irc discussion and some thought I'm not sure I correctly expressed my conflicted feelings.

I'd like to see discussion on this topic take place in the main members forum because I feel it deserves debate at a level greater than just how the issue is constitutionalised (or not). Taking place in the members area may also get it much more scrutiny and debate than it taking place here.

Also I haven't given the NEC any time at all to broach this issue to members before I dumped this amendment text here - so I may have jumped the gun in my attempt to be efficient and it would be unfair to believe NEC weren't planning to talk to members about this.

This potential amendment existing shouldn't (I hope) prevent there being debate and discussion on the issue. Should any discussion lead to this proposal needing to be edited or dropped completely - that's possible.

If discussion doesn't take place anywhere else about this issue prior to this proposal reaching 'member consultation' phase - then I would be absolutely happy for this thread to be used to discuss all possible aspects of this matter, but wording of the clause and any and all reasons for it being proposed.

As Scuzz has delicately put it 'the RAOs are the bitches of the NEC' so to some extent this does give them significant leave to make this sort of decision. That said, the NEC are 'bitches of the members' so they are doing what they think is best for us all, but are accountable to you through all sorts of mechanisms - including when this amendment comes up for vote.
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby samgower » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:56 pm

1) If they wanted anything constitutional, the exec should not have "voted to remove RAOs", they should have voted to ask the board to consider removing RAOs just like everyone else has to ask the board for constitutional amendments. The exec should not just get their way, otherwise what's the point in having a board?

2) Presumably there is no requirement for there to be RAOs, and the RAOs are, in practice, appointed by the exec, therefore the exec don't need any constitutional changes to remove RAOs -- they just let the current ones know they're no longer needed and never appoint any more.
samgower
Terror of the High Seas
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Newport, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby scuzzmonkey » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:43 pm

Regarding 2) this isn't possible as by 10.12 there must be RAO elections every 36 months.
- Will Mac (@Scuzzmonkey)
- Governor (July 2010 - March 2012), PPUK
---
- "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
scuzzmonkey
Space Pirate
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:58 pm

samgower wrote:1) If they wanted anything constitutional, the exec should not have "voted to remove RAOs", they should have voted to ask the board to consider removing RAOs just like everyone else has to ask the board for constitutional amendments. The exec should not just get their way, otherwise what's the point in having a board?

2) Presumably there is no requirement for there to be RAOs, and the RAOs are, in practice, appointed by the exec, therefore the exec don't need any constitutional changes to remove RAOs -- they just let the current ones know they're no longer needed and never appoint any more.


As for 1 it is a matter of semantics. The NEC invented RAOs to do a job, the Board tried to formalise that into the constitution (perhaps too much, too soon). The NEC no longer want them, the Board are trying to oblige by amending the constitution.

2) As Scuzz says, there is a requirement to have RAOs ... or at least to try and keep filling the vacant positions. Keeping them on the books but deliberately having them do nothing seems pointless - hence this amendment.

If there is disagreement with the NEC's vision for having or not having RAOs - that can (and should) be debated. There is risk however of devoting too much time to talking about things - and no-one actually doing anything useful.
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby cabalamat » Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:23 pm

If we are going to remove RAOs, we need to put something in their place, at least in Scotland. Otherwise, we'll be seen as a mostly-English party, which will lose us votes.
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:10 am

I don't see why, if RAOs aren't needed, they still would be in Scotland, nor how that one region would need one where other regions don't. Yes there are Scottish elections, but there are also Welsh ones, and London ones.

This clause is about removing RAOs because (simplistically) the NEC don't want them. There is nothing that stops the NEC appointing their own unelected positions to handle any duties that still need doing. Andy H has said he'd like to focus activity around candidates, not administrators.
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby cabalamat » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:43 am

azrael wrote:I don't see why, if RAOs aren't needed, they still would be in Scotland,


Earlier this year, there was a general election in Scotland. The 5 biggest parties were, in order:

Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour Party, Scottish Conservative Party, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Green Party.

Notice that all these names begin with the same word (I've helpfully highlighted it). In fact the best-placed party without "Scottish" in their name were UKIP with 0.9% of the vote.

Of the 5 listed above, the SNP are a Scottish only movement, and the SGP are a separate party from the Green party of England and Wales. The Tories are considering splitting from the UK Tories to become a separate party, and Labour are increasing their level of internal devolution, with their Scottish leader elected by all Scottish party members.

There will be a referendum over the next 5 years on Scottish independence; according to opinion polls, the result will be close.

What's the point of all these facts? Simply, that the Scottish electorate see themselves as a separate people from the rest of the UK, and that as a consequence a party with a distinctly Scottish dimension is likely to do better at polls. Put bluntly, if the Pirate Party is purely a UK-wide one, it will cost us votes. This is especially important when you consider that Scotland uses PR for all elections (except Westminster), and therefore these are elections we should give a high priority to.

There is nothing that stops the NEC appointing their own unelected positions to handle any duties that still need doing.


I think there should be an elected Scottish leader. If it is an unelected person, and not someone chosen by Scottish Pirates themselves, then I can see that possibly causing friction and resentment.
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: RAO removal

Postby azrael » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:56 am

This clause isn't about electing a Scottish leader. This clause is only about keeping or removing RAOs. So are you specifically saying that we shouldn't get rid of RAOs? Or are you trying to suggest a whole new clause? If the latter, please don't use this thread to do so. If you have ideas for new constitutional amendments please email them to board@pirateparty.org.uk - you may want to have member discussion of it first. If so post something in the member discussion area (viewforum.php?f=7)
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: RAO removal

Postby cabalamat » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:23 am

azrael wrote:This clause isn't about electing a Scottish leader. This clause is only about keeping or removing RAOs. So are you specifically saying that we shouldn't get rid of RAOs?


I don't really have strong views one way or the other on RAOs. But I do think there needs to be an element of separate Scottish structure.

Or are you trying to suggest a whole new clause?


I guess I am.

If the latter, please don't use this thread to do so. If you have ideas for new constitutional amendments please email them to board@pirateparty.org.uk - you may want to have member discussion of it first. If so post something in the member discussion area (viewforum.php?f=7)


Will do.
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh


Return to Constitutional Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.