Structure Group Report 2011-12-30

From Freegle Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


December 2011

This is a summary of discussions since our last report of 30th November 2011, covering messages 9589 to 9688. Our membership stands at 69 (one more than last month).

The topics we have discussed this month are below.

Task 66 - Reps Co-opting Powers

(now Co-Opting Powers for elected groups). (This discussion has now broadened to include the Ombudsman/Returning Officer roles) In the event of an early Rep/Ombudsman/Returning Officer vacancy we are discussing whether, instead of auto-promoting the first loser, Reps/Ombudsman/Returning Officers should be given the power to use their own judgement to co-opt someone for the remaining part of any election year for elected posts, further to that we are discussing how the co-option would work. A Start-of-Topic notice was posted on Central. 18/10/11 Opinion on this has been divided with a wide range of thoughts being expressed. We ran some polls on Structure in an attempt to clarify further:

At the time of the last report Poll 3 was still open. The results are as follows:

Poll 3 Q1: Should the team (Reps or Ombudsman/Returning Officer) responsible for co-option, post their proposal on Central so that any objections can be lodged confidentially with them before appointment? o Yes - 22 votes, 100% o No - votes. o Abstain - 0 votes.

Q2: Should any person co-opted into a normally elected position stand down at the next election for that role, but be able to stand for that election if they wish? o Yes - 21 votes, 100% o No - 0 votes. o Abstain - 0 votes.

Q3: If co-option hasn't happened within a set period of a vacancy happening an election will be held: o Yes, after one (1) month - 4 votes, 19% o Yes, after two (2) months - 10 votes, 47% o Yes, after three (3) months - 5 votes, 23% o No, wait until the next set of scheduled elections for any post (please note this will require a constitutional change) - 2 votes, 9% o Abstain - 0 votes.

Q4: Should a co-opted role holder have equal status and work on the same basis as the elected post holders? (If the answer is 'no' to this question, we will run further polls to decide which aspects of the role will be equal and which not.) o Yes - 17 votes, 80% o No - 4 votes, 19% o Abstain - 0 votes.

Q5: Should the Reps or ORO team be informed of *the other team's suggestion for co-option prior to their recommendation to Central so that any concerns can be expressed, or should the Reps and ORO team approve the other team's suggestion for co-option before recommendation to Central? A consultation period will follow both these suggestions on Central in which any concerns from Central members can be confidentially referred for consideration by the team which is recommending the co-option before it is taken as approved on an agreed date.

o The other team should approve a co-option recommendation - 4 votes, 21% o The other team should be informed of a co-option recommendation - 15 votes, 78% o Abstain (please explain on the group) - 0 votes.

  • The ‘other team' is either the Reps or the ORO team, depending on who is doing what! So if the Reps are co-opting, the other team are the ORO team, but if the ORO team are co-opting, the Reps are the other team.

Based on the results above and further discussion, a final poll as been run:

Poll: Should we send the proposal about co-option to Central for discussion or continue to discuss the issue of co-option and autopromotion on this group? o Send proposal to Central - 15 votes, 100% o Keep discussing - 0 votes

The final proposal will be sent to Central after the holiday period.

Returning Officer Election proposal

Stuart requested that the RO election get started as soon as possible with the proposed timetable:

Sat 10th Dec - Ask for nominations

Sat 24rd Dec to Mon 2nd Jan - Break for Christmas

3rd Jan – Request candidates' statements

10th Jan- Q&A session

Fri 20th Jan - Start the election

This timetable was agreed on Structure and a Special Notice was sent on Central on 10th Dec asking for nominations.

Task List

Our Task List can be viewed at

If any of the above topics interest you, or if you have proposals about the structure of Freegle to suggest, please do join our group.

The Coordinator for this group is Jacky (Great Yarmouth) Deputy Coordinator is Peter Johnson (Hunts) and Secretary is Wendy (Woodley) Owners are Jacky, Peter and Wendy.

Back to Freegle Structure or Structure Group Report 2011-11-30, forwards to Structure Group Report 2012-01-31