Board Minutes for 25th September 2013

Wednesday, 25 September, 2013 - 20:00
Attending: 
Stephen Ogden (SO) - chairing
Andrew Norton (AN)
Jack Allnutt (JA)
Peter Brett (PB)
Sam Clark (SC)
Andrew Robinson (AR)
Will Tovey (WT)
Harley Faggetter (HF)
Phil Hunt (PH)
Apologies: 
Craig Garsed (CG)
Not Present: 
Liam Dolman (LD)
Craig Errington (CE)
Observing: 
Andrew Drummond - from size/scope of Board item onwards

Status of quorum

Quorate

Decisions taken since last meeting

Voting on BPI Panel report and accepting it. Accepted

Actions from the last meeting

  • AP: LD To propose guidelines on forming and conducting Investigations and Panels as starting point for Board discussion. to be picked up on ML or at next meeting. Carried forward. DONE
  • AP on SO to ask LD and Board list what progress is and if anyone wants to take over on this DONE
  • AP on SO to ask list to complete work on Oversight committee 'rules'. DONE
  • AP WT to pass to the panel the urgency on finalising their report DONE
  • AP: panel members to finalise report (liaise with SC to get source document if SC doesn't have time to finalise) DONE
  • AP HF will try to chivvy Constitutional Amendment processes onwards PENDING/CARRY

Oversight committee 'rules' (SO)

(ref https://ppukboard.piratenpad.de/Oversight )

AP SO: raise this with NEC to get broad agreement between NEC and Board on announcing this at conference.

Panel Guidence (LD)

  • Bumped due to LD not being present.

Size/scope of the Board (JA)

Some discussion about the size of the board and the scope of its role. Is there a problem with the Board being too large for the small amount of work it has to do? Is it reasonable that the Board is so large for such a minimal remit while the NEC is much smaller and over-worked? Is it unfair to blame the Board for having a minimal role? Should the NECs over-worked issue be solved independently of the review of the Board's size/scope?

Some views were expressed that the Board should be decreased in size, others that the remit should be broadened - also that if this broadening took some duties from the NEC it would also help towards solving their over-worked problem.

Raised that the Board needs to be large because it is intended to contain a wide range of views and can only do this by being the size it is, and that being a body with light work-load is NOT itself inherently a problem.

Slow speed at which Board manages panels raised as a concern - that is an important part of the minimal role and if it cannot get those done promptly a sign of deeper issues? Hopefully 'panel guidance' (to be covered at future meeting) can assist in making panels operate more efficiently.

  • AP: JA to write up a ppad with proposals and distribute to list

VOTE on BPI Panel (SC)

Vote to accept amended BPI panel report. 8 Yes, 0 No, 0 ABS

AP: SC - Publish BPI Report

Bringing forward of NEC elections

Due to the situation of us not having a Treasurer (in the sense of member of the NEC), and also due to the European election next year, it was agreed that the NEC election would be put forward. When?

Maybe we could ask the NEC when they intend this to happen?

AP: If opening of nominations have not started by date of next board meeting (October 29th) then raise it as issue.

AOB

SO reported briefly on social media team and success rate of converting volunteers to helpers

Action from this meeting

  • AP: HF will try to chivvy Constitutional Amendment processes onwards
  • AP: SO raise this with NEC to get broad agreement between NEC and Board on announcing this at conference.
  • AP: JA to write up a pad with proposals (size/scope) and distribute to list
  • AP: SC - Publish BPI Report
  • AP: (all) If opening of nominations have not started by date of next board meeting (October 29th) then raise it as issue.
Organisation :