[committee] [wheel] UCC policies and regulations

[gozzarda at ucc.asn.au]

Hi both,

Thanks for the input. This is an interesting interpretation that I had 
not previously considered. I will need to discuss this with my Committee 
to see if it changes our interpretation of the constitution since, as 
per section 26, "The Committee shall be the sole authority for 
interpreting the meaning of any of the provisions contained in this 
Constitution or in any regulation of the Club policy made thereunder." I 
certainly see the value in your interpretation, but this perhaps only 
makes UCC's policies more complicated.

Cheers,
Gozz

On 2018-05-28 17:32, Frames wrote:
> 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.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List Archives: http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee