[committee] [wheel] UCC policies and regulations

[Frames]

I'm with TRS,
the section 25 on policy is about serious strategic policy.
Basically, constitution-tier  bylaws.

It isn't supposed to be about day to day running of the club.
If this is the interpretation being made, I think we really need to 
change the constitution to give the committee the power to make 
day-to-day rules.

What I am not getting is why you think the committee doesn't have the 
make rules extending beyond their term.
To me either they have the power to make rules outside of section 25.
Or they do not have the power to make rules at all.
It is one or the other.

When the committee wields any  powers, it does not do so as a *this* 
commmitee.
It does so on behalf of the club; they are the clubs powers, used as 
determined by the committee;
(or used as determined by the general meeting).
The club is an ongoing entity, distinct from the committee that happens 
to be controlling it.

 From an incorporation standpoint, I think that is perhaps important to 
understand.
It is *because* they are wielded on behalf of the organization (as an 
entity),
that people can not sue the committee members individually for the 
actions of the club.

There is no reason why the rules created during on committees term would 
ever stop during the next.
They are not binding future committees at all (except for example if 
they made a rule add meeting order).
They are binding the club.

For many not-for-profits, the idea of a committee's term is not even a 
meaningful statement.
I am on the board of a not for profit. It has 9 board members, each 
elected for a 3 year rolling term.
Each year, 3 of the 9 positions come up for election. There is no such 
thing as one committee or the next.

For that matte ,
or consider any serious organization.
A company, the guild, the Australian government.
Literally no one thinks that rules made under one term do not hold until 
repealed.
It is a bizarre and intensely unstable idea that is honestly without any 
real advantage.
If a new committee is elected, because they hate the rules, they just 
change them.
If not then not

Kind Regards
[*OX]






On 28/05/2018 3:02 PM, trs80 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018, gozzarda at ucc.asn.au wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your response. Please see my comments below. I hope this clarifies the situation. Please contact me or Committee if
>> you have any further questions.
> I don't have questions, just comments, so will respond below as well.
>
>> Section 25.2 of our constitution specifies "Creation, modification, or removal of policy shall require written notice and shall
>> only be passed by special resolution at a General Meeting." It seems pretty clear that this means Committee does not have this
>> power, as the Committee does not have the powers of a General Meeting. The Committee only has powers granted by the
>> constitution, so a regulation binding the current Committee to their own rules would be fine, but they would not be capable of
>> binding future Committees.
> This section was intended for protecting the insurance money, it's not
> about day-to-day policies and procedures.
>   
>> This is why the Committee is able to create regulations that are agreements they bind themselves to. The ability to bind future
>> Committees would be an act of policy, which the Committee does not have the power to do.
> Not really, any future committee could revoke or review or update
> (non-s25) policies, but those those that are established remain in effect
> until a committee does so.
>