At tonight's meeting, on the Motion "The Club accepts the five reports of the elected Officers", voting was as follows:
FOR - 14
AGAINST - 14
ABSTENSIONS - 5
As Clerk to the Club I therefore held the casting vote. My opinion is that if an Officer were removed from his/her post at this stage in the academic year, any replacement would not have an opportunity properly to tackle the role, and on balance the disruption caused would have a negative impact on the work of the Committee and the social life of the Hall. With this in mind I followed the convention of using the casting vote in favour of "no change" - that is to say, FOR the Motion. The Officers' reports were therefore accepted with a majority of one vote.
Any situation in which a group is divided almost exactly 50:50 has the potential for controversy. But I hope that on balance the decision we reached tonight will serve the best interests of the Hall community as a whole.
This was the first Annual General Meeting ever held in this format at Connaught Hall and the first time there has ever been an open meeting where all residents have the opportunity to ask Committee members questions and to vote on their record so far. I wrote the "Accountability" appendix to the Club Constitution in October 2009; it is this appendix that lays the foundations for the AGM in the form we used tonight. It is a practice that I and future Committees will need to adapt over the next few years to ensure it best serves the purposes for which it is intended:
(1) to remind Committee members right from the outset that they are accountable to the residents of Connaught Hall, and
(2) to provide a structured, scheduled event for residents to wield their right of holding the Committee to account.
If you were present at tonight's meeting and have any comments or suggestions about how next year's AGM might better fulfil these objectives, I would be happy to hear from you. [EDIT: residents have been using the "comment" feature on this blog post (below) to submit feedback, so please continue doing this - you can submit comments anonymously if you want; I will reply in the same comment thread.]
The reports submitted to the AGM by the elected Committee members remain available to read online here. I will publish some brief minutes from the meeting later in the week.
233 Members of the Residents' Club in Connaught Hall.
ReplyDelete33 Members present.
14 Members can oust an entire Committee.
Are you f*cking kidding me.
Voting should be anonymous in future.
ReplyDeleteHi Adrian, and hi all (I hope).
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to make a very general comment. One of the attendants asked why the Residents' Club Annual General Meeting took place tonight, that is, quite late in the year, since as such there will not be perhaps the opportunity to make the most of it. And the answer given was that it is now that this was thought out and organised or something along these lines anyway.
For that matter, my experience from the annual meetings of the other clubs and societies in which I am a member says that when an annual meeting takes place very late in the year, there are many things to comment on, but there is not the opportunity to make the most of its potential benefits indeed. When an annual meeting takes place very early in the year, there is the opportunity to make the most of its potential benefits, but there are not many things to comment on. With all these in mind, then, what about going for the ‘golden mean’ and arranging next year’s RC AGM sometime in the middle of the academic year, perhaps late January? Or what about having two such meetings, perhaps one before the Christmas break and one before the Easter break?
In any case, thumps up for this initiative – which I am sure that is one more aspect adding even more to the overall quality of Connaught Hall.
Bill.
WS - yes, I can see there would be benefits to secret voting but as I said when a question was asked about this last night, it really comes down to practicalities. Organising the voting slips for the election in October takes a lot of time adminitratively and the count can take up to half an hour. So we probably would not know the outcome of the voting until after the meeting if we used a secret ballot.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 12i of the Club Constitution says: "Except in the election of the Officers of the Club (for which the voting procedure is prescribed in Paragraph 11), voting shall be by show of hand unless otherwise decided by the chairman. Motions shall be passed by simple majority unless otherwise specified in this Constitution. No motion may be passed if it is illegal, discriminatory, or contrary to the provisions of this Constitution."
Should we make an amendment to the effect that voting on Officers' reports and/or confidence motions should always be in secret? Any other opinions on this?
Anonymous -
ReplyDelete"233 Members of the Residents' Club in Connaught Hall.
"33 Members present.
"14 Members can oust an entire Committee.
"Are you f*cking kidding me."
Low turnouts are a feature of almost every democratic system, from small clubs and societies to national elections, hence our fairly unambitious quorum of 25 members at a general meeting.
Unfortunately, if we raised the quorum to, say, 50 members, we should almost certainly never have a quorate general meeting. And I am keen to make the AGM a truly annual event; it still needs work on the format, but I think it's really important that the residents can question Committee members and - if the will is genuinely strong enough - to remove poorly performing Officers.
Bill -
ReplyDelete"... when an annual meeting takes place very late in the year, there are many things to comment on, but there is not the opportunity to make the most of its potential benefits... When ... very early in the year, there is the opportunity to make the most of its potential benefits, but there are not many things to comment on."
A good summary of the balance we need to strike on timing the AGM. This year we very much focussed on organising an AGM from the beginning of term 2 and it took this long to arrange a date suitable for everyone who needed to be there. The lesson is that the Committee should plan and advertise the AGM towards the end of term 1, fixing a date early in term 2 as you suggest.
In mid-January the Officers hould have enough of a record for a decent discussion to take place, but it would be early enough that meaningful changes could be made or even Officers could be replaced and the new Committee would still have time to gel and get to grips with things.
Surely a lot of the issues raised by this meeting can be solved by one simple move: entire Committee transparency.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by this if an organised effort by the Committee to publish an "Aims" sheet at the beginning of their tenure, which would not only show residents what is to come but also give them the opportunity to contact the Committee with any doubts, complaints or ideas they may have.
Further to this, a general attempt to systemise the Committee would not go amiss, to end the circular argument of Committee subsidisation. I, for one, am bored of residents asking for money and the committee rejecting and then seeing the committee say all people need to do to get funding is "drop them an email". Progress is not made. Perhaps, in the future we'll have the foresight to create a standardised application sheet and a physical pigeon hole with which people could lobby their idea and request funding. Simple and everyone's blushes spared.
One final idea - alongside a standardised application for funding, perhaps the officers could advertise that they need the residents' assistance? Maybe it would have been well received if Entertainments or Sports officers made a preliminary plan of their year's events and advertise that residents could lobby to help them in the administrative or creative side of each event in good time. What's more, residents would then feel an openness that may motivate them to ask for the opportunity to helm their own event.
In my opinion, these simple moves alone would remove the "us versus them" dynamic that seems to have defined this academic year. It is such a shame because I know that no one on the committee this year meant any harm with their actions and, indeed, most of them have tried their hardest to make this year interesting for the Hall. If there is one thing that can be said they have lacked, I think, is imagination and opening up the Hall to the residents in the ways I have suggested will show their willingness for fresh ideas. We cannot expect them to do any better than their best and so to avoid such a divisive AGM meeting occurring again, perhaps they should give more time to those who elected them.
I received the following response by email and am publishing it here to provide the opportunity for others to see. I've left out the first and last paragraphs of the email to keep it anonymous as I don't know if the person who sent it wants to be identified or not.
ReplyDelete------------------
"For future AGMs I think both the committee and the residents would benefit from yourself, as the warden, to chair the meeting. I believe it would:
"1. Enable all the committee members to actively talk about the areas that they have been involved in.
"2. Removed the continued questioning of certain individuals, prompting personal responses.
"3. And in doing so, move onto the relevent and interesting topics instead of focusing on petty politics due to individuals needing to defend themselves.
"AGMs should provide the committee with the opportunity to be praised for the positive changes they have made within the Hall while enabling constructive critism to shape their work in the following term.
"I think the most important point to be raised during the Q&A session was that the residents want more input into organising events and activities. I think it was David Whelan who pointed out that no one other than committee members have received funding to organise events or activities, and in comparision to last year the participation rates are much lower. I believe this point must be address as it is wide participation and group work that ultimately creates community."
------------------
Anonymous -
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of the Committee publishing their aims for the year soon after they are elected. It sounds a bit like the Queen's Speech when the Queen outlines her government's proposed legislative programme at the State Opening of Parliament. This is probably something that the newly-elected President could organise in October.
And I agree that a standard, well advertised means of applying for Club funding would be beneficial. In my welcome letter I encourage residents to form their own societies and mention that Club funding may be available. Standardising how they do that might encourage more people to get involved. Perhaps this is something that the Secretary and Treasurer could work on and trial this year so it is in place ready for next year.
Re the suggestion I posted from my email above...
ReplyDeleteWhat do people think about the Warden chairing the Club AGM? It would be a break from the practice of most clubs & societies where the president/chairman chairs general meetings. I can seethe potential benefits as outlined, but as a matter of procedure, would people prefer the President or the Warden to chair the AGM? (I hardly want to become a despot and remove the chair from an elected President!) What are people's thoughts about this?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI just want to add that I feel the voting procedure itself could perhaps be amended in future years. Residents elect the committee members as individuals, it seems only fair that in the AGM the vote should once again concern individual members and their positions, not the committee as a whole. By having the initial vote against the committee it forced many residents, myself included, into a very difficult position. On the whole I am happy with the committee's work and I genuinely believe most residents agree, however, I do have qualms with one officer and the only means I had to express this was to vote against the entire committee. As a result I think the vote did not truly reflect residents' opinions; most of those who voted against the committee as a whole probably only had concerns with certain members and particular issues. If we had been able to vote against individuals from the outset I'm sure we'd have seen most members receive no votes of no confidence, and the real problems would have been highlighted.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTwo edited comments here. I have deleted the original posts and my edits are in square brackets.
ReplyDeletePlease keep discussion polite and don't refer to individuals.
-------------------------
Anonymous said...
What i find so amusing about the whole situation is that people that this committee's role far too seriously, [if people] cared so much why didn't [they] run for something!! the reason i think is that maybe [they don’t] have the balls to do so, and its people like [this] who are just being provocative for the 'laughs' who belittle everything the committee has worked towards. I think the committee have done a good job on the whole i think there are areas which need to be seen to such as maybe more investment going into hall societies and the bar etc but this may not be possible due to budget concerns. It was a shame to see the AGM which could have been a positive event which drew the hall together get ruined by a few idiots. and the personal issues being brought up […] get over it... i was not present through out but from what i saw i am pleased with the outcome, but all i can say is that i was just surprised at the immaturity of some of the residence.. Also as an observation the committee seemed to be fragmented […]... this i feel is unprofessional […] .... i hope the committe take into account the points raised both in this blog as well as from the AGM which i assume would have been minuted...
-------------------------
Anonymous said...
To the person who referred to [people] not standing. What a cretinous comment.
60 million people don't stand for Parliament in this country. Doesn't mean they have no right to scrutiny.
This wasnt a vote of no confidence in the whole committee. Far from it. As Mick has said - people just wanted to express their displeasure at certain individual members.
-------------------------
Mick, I can see your point. Voting on individual Officers' reports will of course take up to five times as long as voting on all five reports at once - which is why we opted for a single vote this time. May be much longer still if we also adopt a secret ballot as WS suggested.
ReplyDeleteIs the additional time required a trade-off that would be acceptable to the majority? Any other thoughts on this? As I said, I can certainly see the advantage of separate votes right from the start.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI rescued this first paragraph from Anonymous on 20/03. The rest of the past was deleted.
ReplyDelete------------------
The AGM is not designed to be another election. Therefore, individual officers' reports should not be voted on. If people wanted another election, it should be called the 'Second Term Elections'.
------------------
Please remember this comment thread is intended for suggestions about how the format of the Residents' Club AGM could be improved next year. Comments that refer to individuals will be deleted.
ReplyDelete