| Constitutional Reform | Cal Woodruff, MAL |
28/09/98
Some comments on the constitutional revision.
In the last year it has become obvious that there are many flaws in our constitution. Constitutional revision is the most difficult and pressing task facing the current ExCom.
The problem with the constitution is not so much that there are flaws in the basic housekeeping rules for running TNS, but that it is very difficult and unwieldy to change these rules when they are found to be flawed or obsolete. Right now TNS is in the position of a country where they must have a referendum if any legislative change needs to be made. Obviously, even for small groups such as ourselves such a process is much too complicated and costly for it to be workable in the long term.
As I see it, the task ahead is not to make small cosmetic changes to the current constitution (the "bandaid"® approach), but to significantly change how the constitution works to make it a practical document reflecting the wishes of the membership at any point in the future. Thus, we need to create a procedure for making binding rules in addition to the provisions of the constitution (i.e. bylaws). The constitution should only contain that which is most essential to the existence of TNS and is unlikely to change over time. Rules which might change over time should be made into bylaws, which can be changed or added to either by the ExCom or the members as the need arises. What we need to do now is to go through the current constitution as well as the proposed amendments and weed out that which is not absolutely essential to the definition of TNS, and use what has been removed to form an initial package of bylaws.
I suggest that we have a two-way system for proposing and passing bylaws. The first is a majority vote of the ExCom, the second is to enable the members to create bylaws in the same way that initiatives and constitutional amendments are created. However, we need to make it easier for members to propose and pass initiatives, constitutional amendments and bylaws. I would suggest that we simplify this procedure in some way. One possibility is to treat the signatures on the initial petition as votes and a call for a vote will be for additional votes. Another alternative might be to do away with the need for a petition and simply have the motion seconded by another member to call for a vote.
In the current constitution there is no mention of how many voters are needed before a vote is considered binding (quorum). In the last election for ExCom we had one of the highest percentage turnouts ever with just over a third of the members voting. An excessively high quorum will mean paralysis for members who want to initiate changes outside of the jurisdiction of ExCom. It may be the case that any number of voters is acceptable. For most members the mechanics of how the society is run does not seem to be a topic of great interest. Whatever the outcome, we need to clarify this issue now.
Also not covered in the current constitution is how one might remove officers of the society from duty, should that be needed for the protection of the society. We need to define clearly when and how such a process may be initiated. Similarly, we need to clarify grounds for expulsion of members from the society itself. I would suggest here a list of specific reasons, one or more of which must be indicated before any such procedure can be initiated, and then a petition and vote to remove the individual. There would either need to be an election or appointment for a new officer in the case of an ExCom removal. In the case of an expulsion we may want to create an appeal process for reinstatement. Sometimes people are wrongly expelled. (Note that this expulsion process is the sort of item that would be better off as a bylaw in that the reasons for expelling a member or ExCom member may change in the future.)
In order to even initiate any constitutional changes under the current rules, we will need a square root of the membership or 18 members to sign a petition to vote on these changes. Right now we have 9 members on the ExCom and so we need at least 9 other members to get on board, either actively or passively, in this constitutional revision — whatever we decide, it may become. I hope that this will be the last time we need to make such an effort. I think with a little common sense and cooperation it will be possible. What do you think?
Cal Woodruff, MAL