9th September 2011, 07:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 10th September 2011, 08:39 AM by chiz.)
Jack Wrote:So, in theory could some lowly member propose a change to the constitution and have it voted on at an AGM (if they had enough signatures or backing?). Or could they propose a strategic plan as opposed to the elected councils plan and have it voted through?
Another question is does everyones vote carry the same weight? Are there people who aren't allowed to vote if so in what circumstances?
Hi Jack,
thanks for the vote of confidence. My understanding is...
YES everyone's vote definitely carries the same weight, as long as they are a corporate member: the vote of a MIFA is the same as that of a PIfA. As it should be.
Not 100% sure if a (corporate) member can change the constitution that way as it is Friday night and haven't the regs to hand, don't see why not (Kevin W may know). It is certainly possible to propose a fairly major resolution, and the DF have considered this in the past. Why didn't we do it? Because we have to be absolutely sure we have the backing to do this, its not the kind of thing you can do all the time and keep credibility. Apathy means that it is very hard to mobilise support, that's why we have relaunched and are trying to show Diggers that we are serious about speaking on their behalf, so we can build trust and get support when needed to get things done.
Will I be/am I corrupted? Well as far as my friends tell me it hasn't happened yet. Its possible I guess, I do tend to listen to all sides before making a decision, but my default position is certainly not corrupted by the capitalist-running-dog-pigs. And I am very sure that my friends would give me a slap before that happens. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not run for council, I'd rather leave it to someone else and use my annual leave to spend time with my family or go climbing rather than attending meetings, reading reports and writing newsletters. But who else is standing up for diggers? We need to get the numbers.
Re your last point. The IfA doesn't, hasn't, and never will have 'total control'. There are a host of overlapping organisations and bodies that all deal with different parts of archaeological policy, standards and different aspects of what can and is done as archaeologists. The IfA can't really force anything past the other bodies, everyone has to work together. That is as it should be. The IfA isn't a monolith, it is its members, as long as they get involved.