ICU AGM 2015/16 season

reunion

From the ICU website:

ICU website wrote:

The AGM will be held at 3pm on Sunday, 25th September in the Academy Plaza Hotel, Findlater Place, (just off Upper O' Connell Street, Dublin 1). The Irish Blitz Championships will take place at the same venue starting at 10.30am with registration from 10am onward.

In order for the motions and nominations to be made available to the membership at least four weeks before the AGM, as required by the Constitution (article 7.2) the closing date for the receipt of motions and nominations will be end of day August 20th. Proposed motions and nominations for the Executive Committee (as well as acceptances of Executive committee nominations) should be emailed to Secretary. These motions will then be reviewed with full details of motions published by Sunday, 28th August. Nominations for Executive positions will be published below once members have been nominated and have accepted their nomination.

zeitnot

Just curious: the notice says "These motions will then be reviewed". The ICU constitution has many details about motions but says nothing about them being "reviewed". What does this "review" involve?

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

Just curious: the notice says "These motions will then be reviewed". The ICU constitution has many details about motions but says nothing about them being "reviewed". What does this "review" involve?

I imagine cutting out stupid motions, editing or combining motions that make sense.

Not everything submitted to the AGM as a motion is a valid motion.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

zeitnot wrote: »

Just curious: the notice says "These motions will then be reviewed". The ICU constitution has many details about motions but says nothing about them being "reviewed". What does this "review" involve?

I imagine cutting out stupid motions, editing or combining motions that make sense.

Not everything submitted to the AGM as a motion is a valid motion.

Last year the previous executive committee tossed out a motion on the rating system, apparently on the grounds that they disagreed with it: one of many precedents I had hoped had been swept out along with that committee.

If the editing and combining is done with the consent of the proposer, fair enough. Many motions indeed need it.

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

Last year the previous executive committee tossed out a motion on the rating system, apparently on the grounds that they disagreed with it: one of many precedents I had hoped had been swept out along with that committee.

If the editing and combining is done with the consent of the proposer, fair enough. Many motions indeed need it.

Well, I believe if a motion is not valid, that the motion should be automatically rejected however a re-wording be suggested and the proposer given a chance to re-submit.

The one thing about last year, at least they said all the motions that were rejected. The year (or 2 (can't remember)) beforehand, every motion was accepted no matter how stupid or invalid. Hopefully we find the happy middle-ground this year.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

Well, I believe if a motion is not valid, that the motion should be automatically rejected however a re-wording be suggested and the proposer given a chance to re-submit.

A quick search of the ICU constitution turns up several examples of valid *nominations*, but no mentions of valid *motions*. So I'm not sure what makes a motion valid or not valid. Saying that a motion that is not "valid" should be automatically rejected doesn't really solve the problem.

If it's reasonably clear what the motion means and if it doesn't attack named or identifiable individuals or do anything illegal, then it should be valid.

cdeb

zeitnot wrote: »

If it's reasonably clear what the motion means and if it doesn't attack named or identifiable individuals or do anything illegal, then it should be valid.

I guess that rules out a fair few motions in recent times already.

reunion

zeitnot wrote: »

A quick search of the ICU constitution turns up several examples of valid *nominations*, but no mentions of valid *motions*. So I'm not sure what makes a motion valid or not valid. Saying that a motion that is not "valid" should be automatically rejected doesn't really solve the problem.

If it's reasonably clear what the motion means and if it doesn't attack named or identifiable individuals or do anything illegal, then it should be valid.

There is nothing that says every motion has to be accepted either. It is NOT the purpose of executive to figure out what a proposal is trying to say and word it into the constitution. That is the job of the proposer.

So long as rejected motions are public with a clear defined reason given.

I believe last year's executive decided their way or no way, thus abusing their position and people removed them. An EGM can be called for any item that is urgent and can't wait until the next AGM to be re-submitted.

rob51

reunion wrote: »

There is nothing that says every motion has to be accepted either. It is NOT the purpose of executive to figure out what a proposal is trying to say and word it into the constitution. That is the job of the proposer.

So long as rejected motions are public with a clear defined reason given.

I believe last year's executive decided their way or no way, thus abusing their position and people removed them. An EGM can be called for any item that is urgent and can't wait until the next AGM to be re-submitted.

Motions submitted to the AGM should be decided by the AGM unless they are clearly invalid. Last year's executive clearly abused their position by deciding to accept or reject motions because they disagreed with them.
On the other hand asking proposers to combine similar motions makes a lot of sense.