[H-GEN] agm agenda

[Elspeth Thorne]

James Iseppi wrote:

>On Thu, August 31, 2006 13:53, Elspeth Thorne wrote:
>  
>
>>What we're talking about here is a meeting that goes from 3pm to 12am
>>being shortened to a 3pm to 10.30pm meeting. So, instead of a 9hr meeting
>>we have a 7.5hr meeting. I'm pretty sure that a 7.5hr meeting is
>>sufficient for most people's needs, and is sufficient to do things in a
>>relaxed fashion, being equivalent to say, an entire workday.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, but the issue is that different people do arrive at different times.
>Some arrive at 3pm, others arrive later. This suggestion is unlikely to
>affect those members arriving earlier, but would easily affect anyone
>arriving later. I just think there are better ways to deal with this issue
>than to shorten the meeting.
>  
>
I'd dispute that, as someone who has noticed that when they arrive, some 
of the people who are there are *still* there at midnight, or, like the 
majority of people who arrive at around 6pm, start drifting away at 
11pm. It affects everyone, not least because this is probably going to 
be mentioned at the AGM.

>>Are you also willing to get there at 3pm on the following meeting to set
>>up, seeing as you are in possession of the equipment? If so, why do object
>>you to shortening the meeting, since in another email, you have stated
>>that a 5hr meeting is suffcient, and it would, at the proposed shorter
>>length, then be a 7.5hr meeting? Maintaining the length of your personal
>>humbug experience is certainly within your power.
>>    
>>
>>Can you also arrive early? There's currently a dual requirement there,
>>not only for set up, but for exec meetings, which are traditionally held
>>either at the start or just before the humbug meetings. You've stated
>>previously that your usual arrival time is late, much later than the
>>arrival time of many members (from personal observation). This obviously
>>disqualifies you from being able to fufil exec duties, unless you are
>>willing to arrive early ... and see above comment about subsequent length
>>of meeting.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm happy to arrive earlier and setup. However, I would try to organise an
>exchange of equipment with another exec member during the fortnight before
>the next meeting (as has been done by previous executives). A fortnight
>gives quite a bit of time to organise and complete any equipment
>exchanges, and I would consider this one of the commitments of being on
>the exec.
>  
>

...which does not cover your obligation, as a member of the exec, to 
attend exec meetings, at least occasionally. And as for equipment 
exchange .. actually, that can be bloody hard to organise, as past 
meetings have shown conclusively. Especially if the exec members live in 
noncontigious areas, which they frequently do.

>>I don't believe it's a desire (except on the part of people wishing to
>>run for exec and be assured that their responsibilities will be reasonable)
>>so much as a non-objection. Eg, people don't mind if the meeting closes
>>down early, as distinct from people wanting to be kicked out. Except for a
>>few people, there's no significant virtue in having the formal meeting
>>extend further - except and unless they are working on a thorny problem,
>>in which case they either could have arrived earlier or need a break
>>anyway.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, fair enough, but clearly the definition of reasonable differs between
>different groups of people. I'm aware that David on the current exec
>doesn't mind late meetings, and assuming I were elected, I don't mind
>staying later either. I'm sure David and I are not the only 2 people who
>stay later, as i frequently see other members attending up to and beyond
>midnight.
>  
>
I'm pretty sure he minds the lack of transport that late at night when 
he has to haul the humbug equipment around, though. Which brings up 
another point: even though travel is now reimbursed, it is probably 
preferable for an exec member to have access to private transport of 
some description. And if such an exec member is packing up on a given 
night, it is reasonable to expect them to be able to judge whether they 
are safe to be in control of a vehicle, and call an early end to the 
meeting without being whinged at. This is a way of formalising that - by 
allowing extended meetings when and if desired, but changing the default 
to a shorter meeting. And yes, I know that other members attend up to 
and beyond midnight - I'm one of them.

>To the suggestion of arriving earlier, sometimes this may not be possible
>for some members. It may be because of other commitments or because they
>"find it difficult to get anywhere on a saturday before 5pm due to
>laziness". This is why I feel the club should try to be as inclusive as
>possible, and not simply favour the members that prefer to arrive and
>leave early.
>  
>
I, as one of those members who arrive late and leave late, understand 
that the option is open to me to arrive earlier. I can either reorganise 
my committments to get there earlier, or simply suggest retiring to a 
cafe if I feel that my dose of humbug for the fortnight has been 
insufficient. There are alternatives. I do not believe that shortening 
the meeting is a case of favouritism; it's a question of availability. 
You have stated that sometimes it is not possible  for members to arrive 
early; it has quite frequently been demonstrated that, for many members, 
it is not possible to stay late. Sure, there are a few members who can 
stay late, some of the time - but they do not make up the majority of 
potential exec candidates.

>>I, personally, would not be willing to run for exec, for two reasons: I
>>find it difficult to get anywhere on a saturday before 5pm due to laziness,
>>and I am occasionaly unfit to drive late at night due to chronic insomnia.
>>    
>>
>That assumes that a single exec member needs to be in attendance at the
>meeting for the entire night. In fact if an exec member only wanted to
>spend a few hours at the meeting there is nothing stopping them from doing
>that, as long as they organise for another exec member to arrive before
>they leave. With five people on the exec I can't imagine it being too much
>of a problem.
>  
>
Due to the requirement of  exec meetings - at some point, a single exec 
member *will* be in attendance for most or all of the night. And it has, 
in fact, proven to be a problem all year ... which is why this 
discussion is occuring.

>Again, there is no reason for a single exec member to attend for 9 hours
>unless they choose to. I think that as long as people's other commitments
>and availability is clear when they are elected most people would be able
>to serve on the exec and still take on their share of the workload. I also
>feel that the suggestions of both Russell Stuart and Robert Brockway
>should be investigated as these provide a larger pool of people who could
>manage meetings and pack up.
>
>  
>
There is no reason for anyone to attend any part of humbug or become a 
member of the exec unless they choose to. However, as an exec member, 
there is an obligation to both attend exec meetings and to pack up 
occasionally. I'm pretty sure those responsibilities will coincide at 
more than one point, as they have in the past. Frequently.

I do recall something vague about a UQ policy regarding the usage of 
facillities by clubs and the like - that there be an elected member of 
the body present, basicaly so there's someone to take the fall if the 
place gets trashed. In emergency, I could probably suffice, as I am a 
staff member - but that's probably getting onto fairly shaky ground.

Of course, this would have to be checked with UQ. I would recommend this 
happens before the AGM.

Regards,

Elspeth.