Committee Restructure#71
Conversation
|
Rename officers to directors, and their co chair or supporting role is deputy director. The members of the portfolio will just be called subcommittee members of that portfolio (or subbies for short similar to UQBA). With section 9 and 9.5, rework to be a bit stricter. If the committee member misses 3 consecutive meetings (which is roughly 6 weeks so half the semester since meetings are fortnightly) with no absence or explanation then a meeting is to be held in which the aforementioned committee member will have to explain their reasons to T3 or the relevant person in the chain of command (T3 -> Directors -> Deputy Directors). If the person fails to show up to the hearing without discussing a reschedule they are automatically kicked out. Allow for directors to be reappointed within the committee (I believe that exists but rework the section to include the current chain of command). with subcommittee termination I believe similar to the above a hearing should be scheduled. Subcommittee will attend all meetings unless they require a degree of sensitivity that have to be deputy directors and up, they are part of the committee so they should be attending all meetings so everyones on the same page. |
|
Amended according to Zain's critiques. |
PreliminariesIt seems to me that none of the major changes you wish to make are incompatible with the current constitution. If desired, the society could resolve to have the eleven member committee structure you've outlined as the regular committee. If the society was in favour of this structure, I would recommend that they trial it without passing this amendment. Should it prove successful, it can be continued in future years. Should it prove unsuccessful, it can be reverted simply by resolving to have a different structure, rather than requiring another constitutional amendment. This also feels like a bit of an omnibus amendment, covering:
Committee StructureGeneral CommitteeGeneral committee positions are useful because there's always gonna be committee work that doesn't neatly fall into one of the specific officer portfolios, or because there are roles that aren't enough work to require a "full-time" officer, or to be floating assistants to help out whichever portfolio is busiest at the time. They're also attractive to members who want to join the committee to help contribute, but don't feel that they're qualified for an officer position. To some extent the opposite is true; the general committee positions also allow the society to trial some members before electing them to specific officer positions (some of the best committee members I've worked with were completely unknown to me before they were elected to committee, though this is also true of some of the worst committee members I've worked with). The STV voting system is a feature, not a bug, or at least it was when the committee was smaller. It allows for segments of the membership to have a representative elected to committee without needing an outright majority. When there were only four general members, it required 21% of the vote (oversimplified) to be elected. With seven general committee members, this drops down to 13%. While a reduced number of general committee positions may be desirable for this reason, I don't think this warrants removing the position completely. I would support removing the general committee position. A hybrid structure is possible with directors, deputies and general committee, should this be desired. DeputiesI suspect that the downsides of having a deputy for each director position outweigh the benefits. It would seem to me that most of the work that the deputy would perform could be handled equally well by the corresponding mandatory subcommittee. Additionally, your reasoning for removing the general committee positions includes that they are "hard to recruit deliberately for". At the 2025 AGM, only one of the three officer positions received more than one nomination, and even that position received just two. With that in mind, I suspect you'll have similar problems recruiting for the deputy positions. Your description of what the directors and deputies do is:
Could you please elaborate on this? For example, does the director sit on the subcommittee? Converting all the general committee positions into deputy positions only really works if each of the portfolios has an equal and consistent workload throughout the year. The new wording allows for additional directors beyond the four named to be elected at a general meeting, but doesn't allow for corresponding deputies to be elected. "Directors"To me, "directors" implies a supervisory/governance position, like a board of directors that meets only once a quarter, rather than an executive position that undertakes the day-to-day operations. RecommendationsI would keep the current committee structure, and perhaps reduce the number of general committee members, either by reducing the total committee size, and/or adding a few more officer positions. New officer positions could include vice-president, quartermaster, immediate past president/remembrancer. Alternatively, events officer could be split into social events officer and academic/whatever events officer, and the other officer positions could be split similarly. Election ProcessPlease add clarification to "semester". Does this mean they were a member at the start of the current semester, they were a member in the equivalent week of the previous semester (in which case, how doe holidays work?), or that they've been a member for the past six months? Similarly, how long do they have to have been a member of a subcommittee? Giving the secretary the sole authority to specify the format is dangerous. In general, current committee members should have as little influence as possible over the electoral process. Imagine a secretary seeking re-election (to the same or different position). They could make the format requirement for their desired position wildly unreasonable and specific. For example, something along the lines of "candidate statements for this position must be handwritten on a DVD of The Return of Captain Invincible, and physically submitted at the AGM", which would allow them to run unopposed. The hard requirement for a written statement is a high barrier to nominations from the floor. In the past, there have been second-year students who did not nominate themselves prior to the meeting, assuming that some fourth-year would nominate and cinch the election, only to find out at the meeting that this did not happen, and so nominated themselves from the floor.
To me, this reads as though the nominees for deputy are the only ones that vote for the deputy election. Absentee RemovalI'm opposed to any mechanism that would have committee members vote on allowing an absentee member to remain on the committee. Roughly equivalent mechanisms existed in the past, but were ineffective, as nobody wanted to be the bad guy that voted for their removal (especially since if the vote did not result in their removal, there'd be some animosity between the two members who'd still need to work together on committee). Three months is a long time for a student society. If a member disappeared on, say, day 1 of classes in semester two this year (Mon 27th July), then three months later would be part way into the final week of classes (Tue 27th Oct). If a committee member is unavailable for such a period of time, they should not be on the committee. The committee workload does not reduce because a member is absent. I opine that it is that member's duty to resign if they are unavailable, and it is the duty of the other members of the committee to remove them if they don't resign. But as previously mentioned, nobody wants to be the bad guy, which leaves only the three month absentee clause. The proposed wording in §9.5 allows a committee member to give a reason for missing a meeting to the secretary to avoid being removed. However, it does not impose any requirement on the quality of that reason. A member could give the reason "I won't be attending the meeting tomorrow because I don't want to", and that would be sufficient to remain on committee. The purpose of the chain of command section is unclear to me. I'm reading it as if a e.g. director is absent, they attend a hearing with the president, secretary and treasurer, which has no apparent power by itself. By merely attending, the director is prevented from being removed from committee. Also, if the president is absent, they have to addend a hearing consisting of nobody? SubcommitteesThe committee can already impose basically whatever procedural requirements they want on a subcommittee. To reiterate a point above, I don't believe these changes need to be formalised in the constitution. If you did want this more formalised, I would adding a new document to this directory (e.g. The only point I'd actively oppose is subcommittee attending management committee meetings. I suspect the committee meetings will get wildly unwieldy with so many attendees. Tiebreaker VotesUnder standard democratic principles, no member at a general meeting should ever cast two votes. The chairperson should either a) cast a regular vote as a normal member (common for secret ballots), but have no tiebreaking vote (so exactly half causes the vote to fail and the status quo maintained), or b) not cast a regular vote, but cast a tiebreaking vote if there is a tie. The committee tiebreaker clause also contradicts §10.7 (in the update). PostliminariesSome of the wordings could do with some polish, but that's an issue for closer to the AGM. In particular the conversion from multi-member general members to single-member deputies has left behind some artefacts. I might do a proper git review at some point. The improperly removed §9.5 should be immediately readded. This does not need a general meeting, since its removal wasn't voted on. If anybody disagrees with the readding, they should requisition an SGM to discuss it. |
|
I also have thoughts, though Bradley has I think covered most of my points as far before I had a chance to hit comment. Echoing Bradley by this is definitely too big as a single amendment, and should be split up to make it easier to debate and work through. Directors and OfficersFirstly, I wouldn't actually go calling what were Officers as Directors. There's some ambiguity in there, ie. company directors or directors of a board, and usually in a NFP structure like ours you have Officers that sit under the T3. I am for formalising the actual officer position names, these have been relatively stable over the last few years and been a good improvement. I am cautious that the media & social officers could be mixed up with those names, but that's bikeshedding territory. Also in bikeshedding, I feel that there should be a Infra/Projects Officer. Infra subcommittee should definitely report to someone due to the potential to have financial implications with decisions and these must be approved by the management committee. As Bradley mentioned, AGM really struggled to have more than one nomination per officer. This really defeats the purpose of having elections and we need to consider how to encourage more people into committee. General Committee and DeputiesRegarding General Committee - My committees I served on both ran portfolios that general committee members were part of. However, these were flexible as the semesters went on. This meant that sponsorships helped with socials later in their term for example. Deputies seem like it’s adding more structure which I don’t think will be of any benefit and these management tiers bring potential for more power-imbalance within committee which I heavily disagree with. Perhaps better suited is to have multiple officers that occupy a portfolio, or splitting up officers like Bradley suggested. This gives those who are in officer roles equal responsibility, with the side positive effect to temporarily elect a member to officer if needed due to a casual vacancy. General committee in the current structure doesn’t need to have any positions created, and I think should remain in the constitution. ElectionsHeavy heavy disagree on secretary being able to specify the format of elections. The elections must remain impartial and I don’t want to see arbitrary requirements for being allowed onto committee. Also agreeing with Bradley that written statements is too high of a bar as how does someone on the floor provide that? The election process does need more explicit discussion as discussed at AGM last year, and I think needs a dedicated PR. RemovalsRegarding the removal process - I would just like to remind people that it was introduced as a last resort measure to remove non-participating committee members that were elected by the society. We need to respect that the committee is an elected set of members, and these elected members can resign if they feel they are unfit for office. T3 unfortunately do need to have difficult conversations with those who are not engaging and urge them to resign, this is an unfortunate part of the job and just the reality with volunteer orgs. Committee commitment probably needs to be a point that is clearly positioned that way for people that sign up for the role, though you'll never have 100% committee engagement unfortunately. ClosingWould like to note that I'm not against change, though the way this is structured currently seems like change for the sake of change. As Bradley said, everything here can be done with the constitution as it stands. Personally, I'm against changing something as fundamental as the structure of committee without more concrete evidence that this change will make a meaningful benefit. |
|
Took a brief read, had some thoughts, basically I second (third?) the comments of Bradley and Jimmy. |
5 participants
*Note: I would like this to be proposed at the beginning of the 2026 AGM, as it has ramifications for elections and otherwise going forward.
Restructuring the Management Committee
Background
UQCS's scope has expanded substantially over the past few years. The current structure of T3 plus three officers plus seven General Committee members was sized for a smaller society and now constrains how much the committee can take on without people doubling up across portfolios that don't naturally combine. The General Committee has become a catch-all that's hard to recruit deliberately for, and the elected seven-of-N format makes vote stacking near-inevitable when enough candidates run for available spots.
This PR proposes a hybrid structure: more portfolio specialisation at the officer level, the remaining elected non-T3 seats tied to specific portfolios as deputies, and an application-based subcommittee pipeline underneath. Total Management Committee size drops from 13 to 11. The bigger change is composition, not headcount.
Proposed structure
T3 (unchanged): President, Secretary, Treasurer.
Officers (four, up from three):
Portfolio Members (four, replacing seven General Committee):
Each Portfolio Member chairs the corresponding subcommittee and reports to the Officer of the same portfolio. Officer is the manager, Portfolio Member is the deputy.
Below the Portfolio Members sit appointed subcommittees, selected through application and interview by the Officers and T3. Subcommittee size is not capped, allowing recruitment during the year as workload scales.
The Infrastructure subcommittee continues to exist under existing §13 delegation powers, without a dedicated Officer, Portfolio Member, or constitutional naming. It's a low-overhead technical function that doesn't need formalising.
Detailed changes
§7 Membership of Management Committee. Rename the General Member category to Portfolio Member. Each Portfolio Member seat is tied to a specific portfolio at election rather than being generic. Update officer count and Portfolio Member count.
§8 Election of Members to the Management Committee. Update the order of election in §8.6 to reflect the new officer set and portfolio-tied member voting. Each Portfolio Member position is elected separately, with candidates declaring their portfolio at nomination.
Add a candidate eligibility requirement: candidates for elected positions must have been members of the Society for at least one preceding semester, or have served on a subcommittee.
Add a candidate statement requirement: nominations under §8.7.b must include a written statement outlining the candidate's intended approach to the role. Statements distributed with the AGM notice under §19. Secretary may specify length and format requirements in the notice.
§9 Resignation or Removal. Re-add the previous §9.5 (accidentally removed at the last AGM as part of an unrelated PR): a Management Committee member who fails to attend any meeting for three consecutive calendar months, where at least one quorate meeting was held in each of those months, shall have their membership of the Management Committee terminated.
Add a leave-of-absence exception: a member may notify the Secretary (or the President, if the absent member is the Secretary) of an extended absence for medical, exam, or family reasons. The Management Committee may grant a temporary exemption from the absence count by simple majority.
Add a notice requirement: the Secretary must write to a member at risk of automatic termination after their second consecutive missed month, before the third month triggers termination.
§12 Meetings of Management Committee. Add a casting vote provision to §12.6. The chairperson votes on motions as a normal member. In the event of an equality of votes, the chairperson has a second or casting vote. Make the equivalent change to §20.1.c for General Meetings.
Update §12.5 quorum mechanics for the new structure. Half or more of Officers (two of four) and half or more of total Management Committee (six of eleven) per meeting.
§13 Delegation of Powers. Expand to formalise the subcommittee structure:
What this doesn't change
T3 composition and responsibilities. Financial year, accounts, audit, and dissolution clauses. Member voting rights at General Meetings beyond candidate eligibility and statement requirements. Fee structure. Code of Conduct mechanics. Voting threshold under §20.4 stays as 14 of preceding 60 days. Existing §13 subcommittee delegation powers remain, covering Infrastructure and any future ad-hoc subcommittees.
On the accidentally removed §9.5
Clause 9.5 (three-month absence termination) was removed unintentionally as part of an unrelated PR at the previous AGM. We need that clause back regardless of whether the rest of this proposal passes. If the broader restructure doesn't get through ratification, a separate minimal PR can re-add just §9.5.