- This topic has 22 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So events occurred over the weekend that have caused this meeting. I met with the ICC Director (Tim Hines) and he informed me that our constitution not being updated is a serious problem and needs to be handled ASAP. I will be holding a meeting this Tuesday now since this was planned over the weekend I don’t know exactly for sure if we can get our normal meeting room (The Catamount Room) but I assure you that I will get a room somewhere in the UC (hopefully) to have our meeting. So as of right now plan for the details below:
Meeting date: Tuesday April, 13th
Location: UC, Catamount Room
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Topic: Constitution Revision completion.
We need to get this done on Tuesday so we are no longer in violation of SGA policies. Hope to see you there.
Below is a copy of the revised constitution that we will be voting on.
other than being outdated…what parts of the constitution are in violation of SGA policies? just wondering.
There were a number of provisions in it that were not up to SGA regulations. There were also many loopholes, as we’ve been discovering over the last 6 months.
All the violations have been fixed and the loopholes plugged.
This meeting will essentially be to vote on the amended constitution, as a whole.
I’m feeling optimistic about this situation. The revised constitution looks really good and I think SGA will like it.
FYI in article VI, you have 2 paragraphs that are virtually duplicates of one another.
“If an officer is removed from their position they cannot run for that office again for the period of two years” – my opinion is that it should be for 2 semesters instead of 2 full years.
Other than that it is very good guys.
Under planning lan events, I think a “where” should be put in there. Like, “Where will the LAN event be held?”.
Since this is probably the most important part and the one most commonly left behind!
I also thought the alumni as a group would be able to hold 1 vote?
Overall, very good work!
So is the Alumni Adviser position just removed in favor of a non-position holding non-voting group of advisers? i like that… seems more efficient. (Until Kuros Bitey and MasterP get in an EpEEn contest)
Is the webmaster position now just set by the president or what has become of that?
Secretary and Historian are now one position? (they did seem a little redundant)
What happens to council leaders? Just appointed per server by the VP-PC/ per console by the C-VP? They were communally voted on last constitution, so just wondering how that changed as well.
I like the whole “get rid of the gaming club focus” section from the last. seems more open for anything which is awesome.
just a few questions and comments i guess
good write up
EDIT: i went comma crazy NICE
MajorMajorMajor said:
So is the Alumni Adviser position just removed in favor of a non-position holding non-voting group of advisers? i like that… seems more efficient. (Until Kuros Bitey and MasterP get in an EpEEn contest)
It was bound to happen, it isn’t something that could be avoided and something SGA has wanted to happen for a while. I believe this constitution was written with MasterP’s involvement so I wouldn’t expect Bitey, Kuros, nor even myself (even though I’m still a student) to have an “epeen contest” about the matter.
Hopefully some of the members from the other organization will see and read this and convince the main body to attend the meeting to provide more feedback as well as their wants and desires.
WTB big happy family once again.
Also, very nicely written and looks fabulous, no disagreeing from me here though Adam Merrill definitely has a point about location of the LAN events being left out/overlooked!
the alumni no longer have a vote. Which they really shouldnt because let’s be honest, this is a student club, only students should have votes.
I agree I only think that as advisors we should advise, that does not require us to have a vote, just as long as we are heard. I liked the idea of one advisor speaking for the many since it was less of an impact, but this works too.
And yeah if Shane feels the same way about this as I do, which I am pretty sure he does, he probably doesn’t care.
So I think the only epeen in the mix will be MasterP’s
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I’ll be sure to talk to the other execs about them and probably add to/edit our revision before the meeting.
Shingi said:
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I’ll be sure to talk to the other execs about them and probably add to/edit our revision before the meeting.
Please also make sure the meeting is transcribed on IRC and broadcasted on teamspeak for those of us that can’t make it to join in and be apart of as well!
Nickname said:
FYI in article VI, you have 2 paragraphs that are virtually duplicates of one another.
“If an officer is removed from their position they cannot run for that office again for the period of two years” – my opinion is that it should be for 2 semesters instead of 2 full years.
Other than that it is very good guys.
With this, it would need to be specific. For example, 2 sixteen-week semesters as defined by the University. Because, if you say just two semesters…If I got booted in November I could come back in August because the summer semester is technically a semester. So, we either need to state the time or state Fall and Spring semester! Just trying to remove another loophole
Nalgenie said:
Nickname said:
FYI in article VI, you have 2 paragraphs that are virtually duplicates of one another.
“If an officer is removed from their position they cannot run for that office again for the period of two years” – my opinion is that it should be for 2 semesters instead of 2 full years.
Other than that it is very good guys.
With this, it would need to be specific. For example, 2 sixteen-week semesters as defined by the University. Because, if you say just two semesters…If I got booted in November I could come back in August because the summer semester is technically a semester. So, we either need to state the time or state Fall and Spring semester! Just trying to remove another loophole
no you are correct. My concern is that 2 years basically means if a sophomore is removed he/she can never be an officer again and I just don’t agree with that (I believe in second chances). Hmmm I wonder if the length was designed to keep a certain somebody from getting a certain position back…
I added the line to the LAN event planning that AMerrill suggested. The part about the removal of an officer I didn’t change. I think two years is fine. And it doesn’t mean that they can’t be an officer for two years, it means that they just can’t hold that same position for two years (i.e. If a secretary is removed he/she can still run for another exec position.)
Fascist Flakes (Jagr) said:
MajorMajorMajor said:
So is the Alumni Adviser position just removed in favor of a non-position holding non-voting group of advisers? i like that… seems more efficient. (Until Kuros Bitey and MasterP get in an EpEEn contest)
It was bound to happen, it isn’t something that could be avoided and something SGA has wanted to happen for a while. I believe this constitution was written with MasterP’s involvement so I wouldn’t expect Bitey, Kuros, nor even myself (even though I’m still a student) to have an “epeen contest” about the matter.
I was asked to participate in the revision process and actually wrote the part about alumni involvement. You’ll find it hard to get an alumni to disagree with what’s been written. We can still be active in the club, can still participate in events, and can still give advice. We only lose one executive council vote which doesn’t really matter because that one vote has never been enough to change the outcome of an executive decision.
I also did the proofreading and final touchups
Someone definately needs to IRC this so everyone can know how things go. The document is *edited* sexy compared to the overly amended and loophole filled version we’ve been using.
Shingi: Give me a call before the meeting, there are a handful of cosmetic changes that need to be made before the vote.
I for one wholly support this new constitution. We have been trying to push through it for months, and we finally have it finished now. Besides the slight cosmetic changes, and small ideas to review here and there, I believe this is a very solid document that should be with standing for years to come.
As far as the alumni vote is concerned, I was always in favor of some sort of alumni vote, even if its only for game voting, but alas, SGA isnt having this one. They claim no “non student intervening”, thus the new alumni part.
Anyways, looking forward to tonight, hopefully we can “fix” the club up with this
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.