9.17 Elections to replace Governors

[JohnB]

I would like to propose an amendment to this section, so that there isn't an immediate pressure to start proceedings to replace a resigning governor within a defined time frame such as 30 days. I understand there is some "wiggle room" in the current 9.17 clause, however it is not very much and there is still a substantial pressure to meet that deadline.

Maybe something like an additional clause:

9.17.1 When governor positions become vacant outside of normal election terms, election procedures for their replacement are not required until the number of governors still in position falls below 9. Election procedures for any vacant governor positions may be started at any time by the NEC, but at their discretion may be deferred indefinitely until there are 4 or more vacant positions, after which election procedures should ordinarily begin as described in 9.17.

Or suitable rewording if it can be said or fitted in better, the intent is as follows:

Unlike the NEC where positions vacant do need to be filled and can't be left vacant for long, in the case of the board where there are 12 governors, if 1, 2, or perhaps even 3 governors stand down I believe the board can and should still be able to function entirely normally.

This is something I have suggested before (long ago) and having seen the recent vacancies and board elections I still believe this would be an improvement on what happened. We more or less managed, but section 9.17 put pressure on the NEC to begin internal party election procedures for just 2 governors at a time when it wasn't necessarily helpful, due to politics happening in the wider world outside PPUK. Then, additionally, we had a third resignation after a delay, again we more or less managed but it was a strain to make that work and comply with the existing constitutional requirements for election timescales, even though it was clearly sensible to hold a single combined election for all three vacancies if at all possible.

If election procedures were not required until at least 4 vacancies existed, then it would minimize the need for unnecessary internal politicking every time an odd 1 or 2 governors resign (which will doubtless happen periodically) and it would also ensure that most elections for the Board would be for several vacancies, also preferable since we use a Single Transferable Vote system for Board elections.

I suggest the NEC would still be able to start elections for any vacant positions at their discretion, since it might make operational sense to do so and they might wish to take the opportunity to inject new blood into an old Board, the intent of the proposal is that they would not be required to do so until there were sufficient vacancies to make it imperative.

[ajehals]

I don't like the idea of having a board that is 1/3 under strength before requiring elections, if we are going to have a board with 12 people on it, lets keep it at 12 people unless there is a good reason not to. I can see some benefits in lumping elections together, but under the scheme proposed above, vacancies could sit for years. It also concentrates board decision making to a much smaller subset of people if there are only 8 governors, not to mention that the board already seems to have issues staffing things like disciplinary panels at times.

I don't see a problem with internal positions becoming available from time to time and then having a short period of internal discussion and debate, it is likely to be the exception rather than the rule after all. It does not place a significant operational burden on the NEC and if there is enough leeway to ensure that there can be a short delay between a vacancy and a new election then there really shouldn't be a problem.

What would of course make the most sense would be that governors deciding to leave their position outside of the normal election cycle, to make their intentions known in advance so that a vacancy can occur when a new governor is selected to replace them..

[azrael]

I think John's thinking on this is that if every Governor was replaced 1 at a time, the benefit of STV voting is lost (i.e. letting those with minority views get represented) except for the 5 yearly whole re-election. It could be that we are too small a party for there really to be idealogical factions, I imagine to some extent our elections are more based on personality/popularity of individuals, not necessarily the views they hold.

But as we get bigger and have clear factions (pro-this, anti-that, etc etc) with low level factional in-fighting (something to aspire to perhaps) it will be important that those minority views do exist on the Board.

Previous thoughts have been that no Governors get re-elected, and that once Board numbers drop below a certain level it triggers a lemming-like mass resignation forcing full elections. I don't like the idea of *1* resignation causing all other Governors to get booted. If it needed 4 to go before that happened, it would then mean the Board could see a point of operating long term at 3/4 strength - which likewise is not ideal.

No answers here... just thoughts.

[ajehals]

I think John's thinking on this is that if every Governor was replaced 1 at a time, the benefit of STV voting is lost (i.e. letting those with minority views get represented) except for the 5 yearly whole re-election.

The point there I suppose is that at the moment only a minority view is expressed, STV or not, turnout is low, the number of people electing governors is a minority in and of itself. Essentially the solution here would be to use an appropriate voting mechanism for a single seat election.

As long as there are multiple candidates It could be that we are too small a party for there really to be idealogical factions, I imagine to some extent our elections are more based on personality/popularity of individuals, not necessarily the views they hold.

But as we get bigger and have clear factions (pro-this, anti-that, etc etc) with low level factional in-fighting (something to aspire to perhaps) it will be important that those minority views do exist on the Board.

Indeed, but I don't think that at present this is an issue, nor do I think that electing the odd governor during a cycle by a sensible method would swing the board. If nothing else we could always require the board to stand for re-election every time a governor resigns, after all, it could well have the same impact of removing the minority position from the board...

Previous thoughts have been that no Governors get re-elected, and that once Board numbers drop below a certain level it triggers a lemming-like mass resignation forcing full elections. I don't like the idea of *1* resignation causing all other Governors to get booted. If it needed 4 to go before that happened, it would then mean the Board could see a point of operating long term at 3/4 strength - which likewise is not ideal.

No answers here... just thoughts.

And they are appreciated. I think my point here would be that I see a full strength board that is doing it's job as quite important, I think it is a rather poor state of affairs when we can't keep hold of governors for their full terms, and even worse that we then might not fill their posts for a significant period of time.

I know John disagrees with me on this, but I would prefer to see some proper checks and balances and a functional board that has a real role to play for the party in that, at present I don't see it as such (and it's responsibilities aren't in line with that). However, even in it's current incarnation, I think it would be incredibly bad form to simply not have board positions filled for long periods. I would also add that personally, I would advocate on the NEC for an election as soon as possible for a board member unless there were already elections scheduled or elections going on, I wouldn't want to see positions vacant for a long period (although frankly I wasn't aware until working with Phil on the internal procedures, that that was an NEC role anyway..).

[azrael]

If you do have suggestions for expanding the role of the Board, now would be the time to be making suggestions (email the Board) as any role expansion may well require constitutional amendments.

[ajehals]

I realise that, but I'd have to stop, sit down and think about it properly then write it up and I seriously don't have the time at present.

[cabalamat]

I think it would be incredibly bad form to simply not have board positions filled for long periods.

Doesn't that depend on how many positions are unfilled? I.e. a board with 11 members may function OK, but one with 8 or 9 might be clearly understrength.

I agree with John that an election oughtn't to be necessary when the board is only understrength by one member.

Perhaps the rules could be changed so that elections to the board always happen in the same month, except in exceptional circumstances. So if that month is decided to be January, and a board member resigns in February, then the post will be elected the following January, unless in the emantime the board falls below the mimum (8 members).

[ajehals]

I think it would be incredibly bad form to simply not have board positions filled for long periods.

Doesn't that depend on how many positions are unfilled? I.e. a board with 11 members may function OK, but one with 8 or 9 might be clearly understrength.

Not really, If the board is to represent the membership then we should aim to ensure that we have a full board whenever possible. As Az points out earlier in this thread, the board may be made up of a number of people with slightly different positions, if board members leave certain positions may gain greater prominence simply due to an absence of a dissenting voice. My point however is that there is no really good reason not to ensure that the board is fully manned at any one time.

Perhaps the rules could be changed so that elections to the board always happen in the same month, except in exceptional circumstances. So if that month is decided to be January, and a board member resigns in February, then the post will be elected the following January, unless in the emantime the board falls below the mimum (8 members).

Again that could leave us with a board of 8 for long periods, which given the last 12 months poses potential operational limitations, and it essentially means that if that third of the vote represented a particular view, it is no longer represented on the board.

In absolutely practical terms, I don't see an issue with running the odd election out of cycle. If the board starts shedding lots of members throughout the year then we have a different issue to deal with, which is retention of board members.

[azrael]

Any further contributions from others Governors on these ideas?

[tempest3k]

I see no issue with the current system - as the current nominations officer, I would like slightly more 'wiggle' room on the timescales for initiating Board elections (in case these fall at awkward times like a general election or over Christmas when officer availability tends to be limited. This would not need to be a huge increase (45 days would probably work). As the board tends work on longer term issues, an extra 2 weeks should not have a huge impact, unlike on the NEC where officers are dealing with short term urgent issues on a daily basis. Leaving board posts open indefinately to hit a trigger for vacancies would almost definately impact their work and I cannot support a change which would cause that.

[azrael]

Given there's a Board meeting tomorrow, are there any further comments on this?

[azrael]

Progress on this has halted as per a vote recorded at http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Boar ... ember_2012