Nomination for Board for Liam Dolman

[liamreed]

okay...
as the governors would be active in each team the "web team governors" would be aware of the job list and would be able to mediate the prioritisation of each job and then offer encouragement and support after the jobs have been prioritised. for instance if the membership form is broken that would take a higher priority than the website redesign and the website redesign may take priority over a new feature the campaigns team may want to implement. i do not see it appropriate for any direction to be overruled simply prioritised as in the long run most direction is to the benefit of the party.

I find the above quite unnerving. Possibly because of the specific example you chose with IT, but mostly because of having been in the situation you're talking about. Please justify why you think it should be a governor's role to effectively replace the IT Team Leader, Press Officer etc etc?

I don't which i thought i had stated at least twice unless you are referring to my "web team governor" part which i only intended to mean a governor that is a member of the webteam.

No unless the governor feels that the department is failing their duties then the board would be notified and VONC could be issued.

According to the constitution (and the way things actually operate - and fairly well, too, I might add), this is the NEC's job. Are you saying this should be taken over by the board?

as far as i was aware votes of no confidence are provided to the board and then put to the general membership if this is incorrect then i apologise.

the act of governors in these roles should in my opinion compliment the team leaders not over rule them and offer support and guidance.

If the act is to complement and offer support to the team leader rather than to overrule them, how is that any different to any normal team member? How does this jibe with your wanting the governor to be the one prioritising the work schedule instead of the person appointed by the NEC?

essentially it isn't and by prioritising I mean the requests the board makes to each team for instance the board need a new email for a new governor but the web team are currently dealing with a problem with the donations system. the governor that is part of the link to the web team would be aware of this and could tell the board that its not currently a high priority. the whole point of this it to essentially use the board to stitch the party together and provide a more knowledgeable board in relation to past and present events (internal). although I am aware that has been happening more lately which is a good thing!

I believe the power lies with the board and not an individual if only to stop "misuses" of power and changing the constitution to allow for explicit authority I think could have negative impacts and would cause the board to be more active stopping new ventures before they have found there roots.

Again, this lies with the NEC unless there are allegations of misconduct, where it is put to the board for arbitration and possible discipline. Are you saying this should be changed?[/quote]

No i am saying that current set up where no individual carries the weight of the board ensures that this doesn't happen.

[tuoni]

okay...
as the governors would be active in each team the "web team governors" would be aware of the job list and would be able to mediate the prioritisation of each job and then offer encouragement and support after the jobs have been prioritised. for instance if the membership form is broken that would take a higher priority than the website redesign and the website redesign may take priority over a new feature the campaigns team may want to implement. i do not see it appropriate for any direction to be overruled simply prioritised as in the long run most direction is to the benefit of the party.

I find the above quite unnerving. Possibly because of the specific example you chose with IT, but mostly because of having been in the situation you're talking about. Please justify why you think it should be a governor's role to effectively replace the IT Team Leader, Press Officer etc etc?

I don't which i thought i had stated at least twice unless you are referring to my "web team governor" part which i only intended to mean a governor that is a member of the webteam.

I was going off where you said "as the governors would be active in each team the "web team governors" would be aware of the job list and would be able to mediate the prioritisation of each job"?

No unless the governor feels that the department is failing their duties then the board would be notified and VONC could be issued.

According to the constitution (and the way things actually operate - and fairly well, too, I might add), this is the NEC's job. Are you saying this should be taken over by the board?

as far as i was aware votes of no confidence are provided to the board and then put to the general membership if this is incorrect then i apologise.

A VONC is not needed for an appointed officer, they have no "official" rights. They can be removed if they aren't doing their job by the NEC (though they are subject to the same process of VONC as any other official). VONC is only required to remove elected officials.

the act of governors in these roles should in my opinion compliment the team leaders not over rule them and offer support and guidance.

If the act is to complement and offer support to the team leader rather than to overrule them, how is that any different to any normal team member? How does this jibe with your wanting the governor to be the one prioritising the work schedule instead of the person appointed by the NEC?

essentially it isn't and by prioritising I mean the requests the board makes to each team for instance the board need a new email for a new governor but the web team are currently dealing with a problem with the donations system. the governor that is part of the link to the web team would be aware of this and could tell the board that its not currently a high priority. the whole point of this it to essentially use the board to stitch the party together and provide a more knowledgeable board in relation to past and present events (internal). although I am aware that has been happening more lately which is a good thing!

I'm still not convinced this is, or should be, the board's job. Certainly no more than any other group's.

I believe the power lies with the board and not an individual if only to stop "misuses" of power and changing the constitution to allow for explicit authority I think could have negative impacts and would cause the board to be more active stopping new ventures before they have found there roots.

Again, this lies with the NEC unless there are allegations of misconduct, where it is put to the board for arbitration and possible discipline. Are you saying this should be changed?

No i am saying that current set up where no individual carries the weight of the board ensures that this doesn't happen.

If the board/governors aren't responsible for the running of the teams (as above), in what way could an individual of the board exert undue influence?

Sorry, it's probably just me getting confused but I'm not sure I follow this line of discussion properly

[tuoni]

okay...
as the governors would be active in each team the "web team governors" would be aware of the job list and would be able to mediate the prioritisation of each job and then offer encouragement and support after the jobs have been prioritised. for instance if the membership form is broken that would take a higher priority than the website redesign and the website redesign may take priority over a new feature the campaigns team may want to implement. i do not see it appropriate for any direction to be overruled simply prioritised as in the long run most direction is to the benefit of the party.

Ah, wait... are you talking about managing the expectations of the board, here? If so, that makes me slightly less confused.

[liamreed]

Sorry with the lack of strict formality of the original amendment it is easy to get lost yes the prioritisation is mainly for the board's "wish list" and i forgot that web and press aren't elected positions so that wasn't probably the best example.