Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

Constitutional Amendments - discussion

Hi,

Since it seems the forum posts that have been linked to in the constitutional amendments page are all for the legacy forum, I thought I'd create a new topic here.

One section that I think I'd like clarification/discussion on is the new section 4.2:
4.2 Members shall not share membership with any organisation that has been declared to be incompatible with membership of the Party by the Board of Governors ("Board").
Is there a reason why it is only the 'Board of Governors' that decides what is or isn't compatible? In my view this should read "by a majority vote of the membership" or at the very least "by a majority vote of the NEC".

Comments

  • I don't think that it can be a majority vote of the membership, as that doesn't prevent take-over. (ie those who hold potentially incompatible memberships would have to be entitled to vote as they would still be members at that point)
  • Hmm... that's slightly different I think. That clause doesn't state anything about 'revoking' membership from an organisation that has already had a member share its membership.

    What I read from 4.2, if I were to share membership with organisation X, then 2 months later the board (or whomever we decide upon!) decides this organisation is incompatible, then there's nothing to make organisation X have to leave the membership. Or - perhaps I'm not quite understanding what 'share membership' means. Maybe it should be better clarified.

    To fix your potential problem, it could be changed to:
    4.2 Members shall not share membership with any organisation that has been declared to be incompatible by a majority vote of the active membership (with any potentially incompatible members abstaining)
  • You may be right that the wording could be improved. Once you look at the same thing again and again knowing what it means it makes it very hard to see better ways of saying what is intended. This is why we go through the consultation phases which, as you've noticed took place in the legacy forums and you may also have noticed we didn't get as much consultation from members at the time as they probably deserved.

    The intention of the clause is this:

    If Lennon joins the People's Pirate Party and the People's Pirate Party start to behave in ways which might discredit its members we might decide that no member of the People's Pirate Party should be a member of the Pirate Party UK. This clause would allow the Board to declare that membership of the People's Pirate Party to be incompatible with membership of the Pirate Party UK. Thus Lennon would need to choose which he wanted to be in. If he didn't leave the People's Pirate Party the Board would be able to revoke Lennon's membership of the Pirate Party UK.

    (sorry Lennon)
  • Thanks for clarifying that azreal. That makes sense, but I guess it doesn't address the issue of the 'board' having ultimate power about who it wants in the party (OK, I accept now that it is also "Lennon's" choice as well) but... there's no clarification about the 'type' of organisation (political, I assume). I suppose technically the board could decide that all members of the "Cycle organisation of Poole" are incompatible if it came to that.

    I see that that legacy post was made in 2013! So we are 'passed' the amendment stage and are now at the adoption stage - which is what the email I received on 11/02/15 is about. I assume that if this is the case it's too late to go back and amend anything now!

    If this *is* the case, then how come I cannot vote on the amendments? I just see a 'You do not have permission to view this form' message

    Sorry for the extra confusion!
  • If you are a member and cannot vote please email right away so we can sort this out. Email board@pirateparty.org.uk and CC treasury@pirateparty.org.uk

    The reason why the Board are imbued with this power instead of the NEC is the division of roles. The NEC run the day to day operation while the Board holds a more oversight and long-term running of the Party perspective. Disciplinary issues are also within the Board's remit - and kicking someone out of the Party because of their other memberships is more of a disciplinary thing than day-to-day running.
Sign In or Register to comment.