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.
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.
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.
azrael wrote:I don't see why, if RAOs aren't needed, they still would be in Scotland,
There is nothing that stops the NEC appointing their own unelected positions to handle any duties that still need doing.
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?
Or are you trying to suggest a whole new clause?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest