AZ069 11.5 Good Standing

[azrael]

hopefully not posted this already

affects 11.5

Create sub-section

Code: Select all

11.5 Good Standing - A member is regarded as being in Good Standing if they are a paid up member and have not had their position of Good Standing stripped from them.

[glambert]

Can we extend to specify what would warrant Good Standing being stripped?

Eric tried to blackmail the NEC to get his own way; that to me takes away Good Standing, but there has been, afaik, no formal procedure taken place to do so; nor am I certain such a procedure exists.

[PeterBrett]

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/NEC/ ... ember_2010

"A disciplinary subcommittee consisting of John Barron, Pete Liddell and Miah Gregory was formed as per section 4.5 of the constitution."

Draw your own conclusions.

[Finlay_A]

Can we extend to specify what would warrant Good Standing being stripped?

Eric tried to blackmail the NEC to get his own way; that to me takes away Good Standing, but there has been, afaik, no formal procedure taken place to do so; nor am I certain such a procedure exists.

Currently the constitution (4.5) allows the NEC (or a designated sub-comittee) to suspend or revoke a member's membership for disciplinary reasons. This could be extended to include removal of a member's "good standing", if they decide removing membership would be too harsh.

Alternatively if we go down the route of the board handling disciplinary procedings, then the same would apply, but replace NEC with BoG.

[azrael]

Just to clarify 4.5 is currently:

Members shall not act in a manner which brings the party into disrepute or is likely to bring the party into disrepute. If a member is suspected of behaving in such a fashion he/she will be asked to explain their actions to the NEC or a designated sub-committee to explain their actions. Their party membership may be suspended or removed by said committee.

and does not specifically provide for removal of 'good standing'. Nor does it preclude it. I think the options available to such a committee do not need to be carved into the constitution.

This clause specifically creates the option that good standing can be stripped, which is its purpose. Doesn't say how it would happen, but I envision it being an option for disciplinary panels. What such panels can do is not specified in my 11.4 (viewtopic.php?f=76&t=2602) and (as above/currently) not sure it needs to be.

And just for completness I'll cross reference to my amendment to alter 4.5: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=2508

[glambert]

Ok, I still think there needs to be some sort of structure or disiplinary procedure that needs to take place. For example, if you're summoned to a court of law and do not appear, the hearing takes place without you. If the disciplinary committee requested a disciplinary with a member and they didn't show, could they just decide amongst themselves whether or not to revoke their membership or would the member have to be present to put their case across? Innocent until proven guilty etc.

I know I'm being devils advocate, but the Board are here to provide the rules for the NEC to work within, and I think the disciplinary parts of our constitution are potentially open to abuse. (FTR, I would never even think that our current NEC members would abuse it, but who knows about future members...)

[scuzzmonkey]

personally i've always been of the opinion that if you don't show for a hearing without presenting due reason - i.e. you're unavailable due to something serious...not just being down the pub - then you are accepting that you cannot defend yourself and thus are accepting an outcome that probably doesn't end up being in your favour.

note: i'm not saying that that implies you're guilty - just that if you can't be arsed to even attempt to defend yourself there is only so much leeway either side can make.

[glambert]

personally i've always been of the opinion that if you don't show for a hearing without presenting due reason - i.e. you're unavailable due to something serious...not just being down the pub - then you are accepting that you cannot defend yourself and thus are accepting an outcome that probably doesn't end up being in your favour.

note: i'm not saying that that implies you're guilty - just that if you can't be arsed to even attempt to defend yourself there is only so much leeway either side can make.

I'm of the same opinion, but a political party has to be more professional than going with the flow and seeing what happens and deciding on things case by case.

[scuzzmonkey]

Something like.

Code: Select all

The member shall be called before a sub-committee chosen by the Board, and if the member chooses to not show, without prior warning and due reason, the hearing shall take place without them. A Member choosing to no-show is accepting that they are voluntarily choosing to not defend themselves and may result is harsher actions being taken.

but worded better ofc.

but again - i think all this shit should be in a code of practise and not the constitution.

[glambert]

Something like.

Code: Select all

The member shall be called before a sub-committee chosen by the Board, and if the member chooses to not show, without prior warning and due reason, the hearing shall take place without them. A Member choosing to no-show is accepting that they are voluntarily choosing to not defend themselves and may result is harsher actions being taken.

but worded better ofc.

but again - i think all this shit should be in a code of practise and not the constitution.

Sounds about right. Code of practice to be changed by whom? Us?

[scuzzmonkey]

pretty much.

imo, the constitution should be the bones, and solidly set out and changed as little as possible - whereas a code of practise would be how to act within that framework....the code of practise is not law (so to speak) and can be adapted and modified at will, just as long as the methods remain constitutional.

i.e. "you have a tribunal that is made up of yourself and a subcommittee of X persons chosen by the board " is part of the constitution but how it is run, if there is a chair, the dates, duration etc is all in a code of practise.

it's that - or we have the most iron glad red-tape nausea inducing Constitution ever and we can do nothing without clearing it with 1000 3rd parties...or you ignore it - neither is good - it should deal in the black and white - the grey should be under the CoP and by precedents.

[glambert]

I can understand that, ok, I support the idea of it being in a CoP, but I think we should branch into a new discussion about a CoP in a new thread.

[azrael]

I know I'm being devils advocate, but the Board are here to provide the rules for the NEC to work within, and I think the disciplinary parts of our constitution are potentially open to abuse. (FTR, I would never even think that our current NEC members would abuse it, but who knows about future members...)

Well see my clause that actually puts the Board in charge of such committees and not the NEC. Of course, that isn't a reason to not have rules. We do indeed need them. The absence of a clause from me to create such rules isn't my way of saying we don't need any. My section 11 is an extremly minimal framework, and I encourage everyone else to come up with appropriate clauses to pad it out where necessary.

[azrael]

Something like.

Code: Select all

The member shall be called before a sub-committee chosen by the Board, and if the member chooses to not show, without prior warning and due reason, the hearing shall take place without them. A Member choosing to no-show is accepting that they are voluntarily choosing to not defend themselves and may result is harsher actions being taken.

but worded better ofc.

but again - i think all this shit should be in a code of practise and not the constitution.

This wording isn't relevant to this particular proposed clause, and I advise creating a new proposal, and separate thread for it

[azrael]

I can understand that, ok, I support the idea of it being in a CoP, but I think we should branch into a new discussion about a CoP in a new thread.

Agree

[Gavman]

this raises the question, how would one coem back into good standing with the party?

If we clarify how one can fall out of good standing then surely you can gain good standing?