LM Rules

Couldn't find the constitution in any form in my files :-( Might have a
look in the older New Chronicles later.

What I did find was the Life Member Rules. Reproduced for your
entertainment and enjoyment. (Nick - can we enshrine this somewhere worthy
?)

1 The person suggested for life membership must have held a committee post
for one full year prior to being made a life member.

2 The person must be proposed and seconded for life membership by the
current members of the committee.

3 Persons currently serving on the committee may not be proposed as life
members

4 The decision to make the person a life member must be passed by the
society members in a vote at the general meeting of the society

5 The person proposed need not be present, or awake during the general
meeting at which the decision is taken.
Item 5 was later questioned and later approved in a separate vote.

6 The person proposed need not be alive when elected a life member, the
duration of life membership being for a minimum of one year after the
election.
Item 6 was later questioned and approved in a separate vote.

7 No members found abusing penguins during the general meeting will be
allowed to vote.
This was later amended and the word "physically" added:

7 No members found physically abusing penguins during the general meeting
will be allowed to vote.

8 No members found to be unconscious, catatonic, asleep or dead (including
deceased life members) will be allowed to vote. Similarly ineligible are
any members under the influence of mind-affecting drugs or alcohol to the
extent of being unable to say their own name three times without falling
over.
This was amended and the word name changed to "full name and title"

8 No members found to be unconscious, catatonic, asleep or dead (including
deceased life members) will be allowed to vote. Similarly ineligible are
any members under the influence of mind-affecting drugs or alcohol to the
extent of being unable to say their own name and titles three times without
falling over.

"I hope this will avoid any further confusion about how to become a life
member. The effects of being a life member will be published at a later
date, or are available on request"

Daniel Celano, Autumn 1991, A Rune With A View Issue 10 *

* Or one of them at least. I have 2 different RWAVs labelled issue 10 from
the same year ....

Anyway the entire constitution looked like this at one point. Fun yes.
Workable maybe. Legal by the SUs standards no.

I can remember 3 people being legitimately made life members in my 3 years.
(Nickwa, DanC and ChrisH)
I say legitimately cos during the highly drunken 94 GM - which may have been
where Steve Bob lost the camera - all and sundry were proposed and accepted
with ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION. Several of these turn out to be ineligible
under rule 1. Rule 8 was called several times that night - at that pt it
was in force for general voting. One member - lets call her WB - failed to
pass this test. Somewhere in the mess that night we lost the first attempt
at putting the constitution in order, and realised we did not have a
definitive list of life members.

Following the Jihad and Coup of 95, and the subsequent SU intervention,
redrafting of constitution etc Life Membership was abolished. And since it
was a mess and a bit of a joke by that pt we're possibly better off without
it. Finding a way of honouring those who have served though might be a
nice thing to do....

The point to this is to illustrate the style in which "the rules" might be
written - people's jobs, members conduct, intent to conduct the following
activities (with Thursdays at it's head) - a semi serious point being made
with some humour....

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
payres@
www.netcomuk.co.uk
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I know this is part of a discussion that took place a long time
ago, but due to the vagaries of my university's email system I only
received it this morning, which is probably some sort of record. A
lot of what was being said earlier this month makes a lot more
sense now it must be said....
Judging by what Phil said in his mail (not that actual rules part,
if you're really interested in those have a look for them in the mail
archive) it sounds like the life member system got way out of hand
a few years back and could do with a quick overhaul.
Having life mebers can only be a good thing, its always useful
to be able to contact the Ghosts of IFIS past, and by all means let
those rules stand as a means of selecting life members from this
point on. But....
.... as it stands at the moment no-one seems to be entirely
sure who are life members and who aren't. Therefore might it not be
prudent to re-start the life membership list from a day-one position
(may I humbly suggest 1 January 2000, its an IFISy sort of date)
by having the current committee run an election for life members.
Any life members elected, which will doubtless be the people
who already are, or think they are, life members should then be
made responsible for themselves. Elect a committee another
committee from within these life members, who, if I remeber some
of the various things that were posted as a result of this, will not
have to deal with rules lain down by the SU and can concentrate on
enjoying themselves. All they'd have to do is make sure that the life
membership list is maintained and updated each time a new LM is
elected.
If there is a feeling that this removes some of the power from
older members who hold committee positions then perhaps a
committee position should be created along the lines of "Life
Member Representative" who should then be the only LM on the
committee.
I know this is dragging up a lot old issues, but I wanted to be
able to actually contribute to this discussion.


Jon



URG!ARG!

Jon Lee said:
No, it got fixed ages ago... Even ages before the SU went and re-dis our
constitution, which in turn was a good couple of years before THIS committee
went and re-did the constitution AGAIN. The overhaul has been done, possibly
3 times.
Debateable.
Most of those "ghosts" are quite contactable anyway, and some of them are
even continuing to pay a few quid in membership fees each year, not to
mention gifts of books, website hosting, printing, and whatever else...
Nobody is a life member. Full stop. Who's unsure about that? And why didn't
they ask anyone?
If it were to be re-instated, which is probably against SU rules, or
certainly has been for MOST of the last 5 years or so, then I suspect it
would only get well out-of-hand again.
As far as I can tell, the only "older members" who hold anything that MIGHT
be considered a committee position are me and chris lyth, and they're only
"honourary" positions or something anyway. I've never considered
"information superhypewayman" to be a position of power anyway. It's more
about "help" than "power". I don't even know if I'm allowed to vote in
committee meetings, but I don't think I've ever needed or wanted to anyway.
I'm not sure what "power" you're referring to, but it sounds like it's all
part of a big misunderstanding that would never have happenned if people had
actually asked any of the older members in the first place!
OK... just to make everything 100% clear...

There are no life members, we've not had life members for 5 years or so, and
neither of the big constitution rewrites have brought life membership back.
we're almost certainly still not allowed life members, we'd almost certainly
be closed down if we tried to reinstate a life membership scheme... assuming
we were even foolish enough to think it would work...

There are no life members, ex members, older members, whatever you want to
call us, in any real positions of power, and there probably never have been
unless colin counted... but I think he WAS a student at the time anyway(?),
and again this was quite a few years ago.

There are plenty of ex members, older members, whatever, who are able to
offer help, advice, and all kinds of extra skills and services, assuming
they're wanted, but I don't think that's got anything to do with "power" and
probably never has done. I'm not sure who misunderstood this, or why.

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
Signs of crime: screaming or cries for help.

Do they have "committee meetings" these days?
Thought so. Good.
He wasn't.

Student societies are for students to join and run.
If a few weirdos want to hang around and offer opinions, that's ok.

If some of the old folk want the tag of "life member" as some sort of badge
of honour, and the students like the idea, then by all means have fun with
whatever names etc. you like, but you will have to keep it very separate
from the SU's procedures for running a society.

Dominic


"Spontaneity has its time and its place."

Thomas, Dominic said:
Yes, and quite regularly. I'm impressed.
OK... but we all know what happenned to him (and if you don't, you really
don't need to, honestly). It's all ancient history in society terms anyway.
Pretty much what I said.
Writing "the society rules" for all the funny stuff that used to make the
society fun, but which isn't allowed in a constitution any more, is probably
a good idea. Forming a "jedi council" that has any "power" would probably be
silly and not a good thing. Forming a "jedi council" that might be able to
offer advice... well hell, anyone can offer advice anyway, so I don't see
much point, but obviously that's open to discussion and the usual democratic
process and everything...

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
Who's on first?

probably
be
democratic
Here, here. Get the rules written up and leave the Life Members thing
dead. Union have banned it so we can't bring it back even if we want to.
Besides people who don't get LM'd get jealous of those who do even though
they worked far harder than some of the other skiving b******s who only got
nominated cos the rest of the room was drunk on the free beer....

No I'm not bitter

:-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
payres@
www.netcomuk.co.uk/~payres
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This email contains humour and exaggeration that has been used to make a
point. So don't flame me !

I'd just like to say at the outset that I don't think IFIS needs a life
member system at all.

Having said that though, if you must talk about one:-
Yup. There were buckets of them, and no rules at all. I drew up the rules
posted on the list a while back, with that waffle about penguins and falling
over, and the rule about having been a comittee member for a year (which
neatly excluded me).

It never seemed to have that much support though. Nobody could be bothered
opposing it, but that's not the same as wanting it.
There is a need for continuity, yes. There needs to be somebody collecting
the magazine, and the rules, etc. There needs to be somebody with
connections to other organisations or individuals.

The secretary should have all the magazines, and all the minutes and
constitutions from years gone by, but they don't seem to.
I was under the impression that they'd all been sacked.
Could do.
We're making them sound like a 2nd chamber of parliament. "Life membership"
can be thought of two ways.

1) It's something you apply for to enable yourself to enjoy the benefits of
IFIS year after year. In this instance, you might just as well join the
union as a life member, and then pay your subscription each year. Most
graduates can afford it.

2) It's something given to you as an honour. In which case, there's no
"election" as such, but a nomination process, followed by a vote of
approval.
If you're going to have them, I like the idea of a second comittee. You can
have all sorts of fun with this idea. Call them the "Jedi Council" or the
"Council of Elders" or something. Whether they have any actual power is
another question altogether. The lifers could vote amongst themselves to
elect the council, with roles like "Master of ceremonies" or "Grand Vizier",
"Historian", and that sort of tosh.

Should they have a voice on the comittee? Hmm. It's tempting to say "have
them vote on all new laws, and return them to the first house if they don't
like them" but that's faaarrr too much power. They can turn up to meetings
and speak just like anyone else. Maybe give them the authority to call EGMs
and perhaps to chair them.

Would they really be serving a significant purpose? No, probably not. We do
need to save all the documentation though. A frightening amount of it is
lost, or in the hands of private collectors.

Why is the secretary charged with the taking of minutes if nobody keeps
them?


Dominic

"It's worse than dog-eat-dog.
It's Dog-doesn't-return-dog's-phone-calls." [Woody Allen (allegedly)]

Thomas, Dominic said:
I've offered before, and I'll continue to offer until I'm blue in the
face... If anyone can get hold of any minutes or constitutions that are not
already on the website, give me a copy and I'll PUT them on the website.
This could then make useful reference material for any new committee member,
and hopefully confusions similar to this, and similar messes, wouldn't need
to happen.

For a start... how many old constitutions and minutes do the SU themselves
have? My understanding is that they've lost most recent stuff, but DO still
have a stack of ancient stuff? (again the cause of a lot of recent
confusion)

In the absence of any useful reference material, myself, and probably most
other "older members" are more than happy to answer any questions that
current and future committee members (or any other members, even) might
have, and again this could save a lot of confusion.
Well... "sacked" might be a bit of a heavy word, but we were basically told,
a good 5 years ago, that the SU no longer allowed life membership, and the
society had to either stop life membership, or stop existing, and I don't
think anyone really minded much anyway - everyone knew it had got well
out-of-hand, and certainly nobody had any great problems paying a mere 3
quid a year membership fee or whatever.
You're definitely taking the piss... I just hope everyone else can see that!
<cough> <asbestos> assuming they get invited ;-) </asbestos>
Errrrr... what ARE the rules anyway? Can't any sufficiently quorate number
of members do that anyway, assuming they advertised it SENSIBLY at least a
week in advance? And don't SU life members still have as much voting right
in society GMs as other SU members?
As far as I can see, the only advantage is that "older members" DO know a
lot more about the histroy of the society, they DO know what's worked
before, and what issues have arisen last time we tried to do anything, and
what difficulties we've had with the SU before and how we've resolved them,
that kind of thing. Most of this "purpose" is probably best served in an
advisory capacity rather than in any position of "power" though. It IS GREAT
to get new blood into the committee every year, and that's definitely the
way things should be done if IFIS is supposed to remain up-to-date with
current student issues and needs, but it's also not fair to expect someone
who's been a fresher for a year to know all the ins and outs of SU and IFIS
politics, and it's clearly worth taking advice from people who've been there
before. That doesn't require giving "power" to the people who have been
there before, just taking advice from them, which is probably quite
adequately achived by the current system of having one or two honourary
society positions who are invited to committee meetings, regardless of
whether they vote or not, and then following all the usual rules about
inviting ALL members to AGMs and EGMs, where again if advice ought to be
offered, it CAN be voiced in the same way that ANY society member can voice
opinions at meetings. I can't see any obvious flaws in that system, and I
can't see any reason to give any extra "power" to anyone. If you're a fully
paid up member, you can go to a GM and say what you want to say and vote how
you want to vote, so what's the problem? We're already a democratic society
anyway, no? power to the people! :-)
So get it on the web, and it'll live forever!
Why does the SU demand a copy if it always loses it? who can tell?

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
If everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane!

Sorry.

I was momentarily tickled by the similarities with the House of Lords
cobblers.
Everyone agrees that a bunch of unelected doddery old codgers hanging about
for years offering unasked-for advice and opinions based on outdated mores
can occasionally be useful, but nobody seems quite sure what to do with
them.

It's a similar story for the House of Lords.

I wasn't expecting anybody to take the "Jedi Council" garbage seriously, and
I'd be ashamed to have anything to do with one if it existed. I was bored,
and daydreaming out loud. (sic)

On an irrelevant, off-topic note, the best idea I've heard yet for House of
Lords reform comes from Billy Bragg, who says it should be populated afresh
after each general election by the political parties themselves, but based
on the proportion of votes gained in the election, rather than on the
proportion of seats gained in the house. It's cheap, it's simple, and it
invariably doesn't give any party an actual majority.

Personally, I'd leave it alone.

Dominic

"The body is a sacred temple. Sex is not just a matter of knowing how
to enter that temple, it's finding out where everything is, shifting
the furniture about, and remembering to move more slowly and with
more respect than you'd really like to." [Spanky (by Christopher
Fowler)]