 Suggestions (again) to improve the woeful CMCOC |
|
From: Brett Davis To: info@shoalhavenbushwalkers.com Subject: Suggestions (again) to improve the woeful CMCOC Date sent: April 5, 2025 |
|
Hi SBW committee, The current committee Members Code of Conduct (CMCOC) is an embarrassment to the committee and the club. It is so bad that it could be considered to be “prejudicial to the interests of the club” because any thinking person who reads it would consider would consider the club is being run by fools. The CMCOC is either the product of a disturbed mind, or the product of a bureaucrat. Or both. 😀 The original CMCOC had four modifications made to it about a year ago and hasn’t changed since then. Three of those modifications made the CMCOC worse, especially the change from “sub-committee” to “panel”. One modification, however, actually made the document a bit better, but given that this was done by a committee member, it was probably accidental. The improvement was the removal of the requirement for a committee member to publicly support committee decisions. Who'd want to do that? 😀 All the issues I have had with this document in the past have yet to be addressed, or perhaps the committee has addressed them but failed to see any need for change. If this is the case, let me know. In the meantime, here is a listing of only some the many problems of the CMCOC, beginning with its “Misconduct” section. Misconduct In my humble opinion the "Misconduct" section of the SBW committee Members Code of Conduct is badly flawed, totally unnecessary, and should be removed completely and as soon as possible - mainly for reason shown immediately below, but also for the other reasons listed ... All possible misconduct is already covered by the club's constitution a) The constitution already has a procedure for removing a committee member from office – in section 21 b (ix) – and it is better than the process described in the Misconduct clause because the action can be taken by the committee IMMEDIATELY. Under the terms of the Misconduct clause - which quotes the constitution’s sub-clause 21 (d) - the process could take MONTHS with the President arranging a “panel”, the panel holding a meeting, the panel making a decision and reporting back to the committee, and then the possibility of a removal process that could involve a time-consuming appeal by the accused leading to the need for a decision to be made at a general meeting which could be up to three months away. In addition to the procedure for removing a committee member from office, the constitution also has a procedure for cancelling the membership of a member for bad conduct – in section 6 - Cessation of membership, and the constitution also has a procedure for disciplining members – section 13 - Disciplining of members. As the constitution already has these and given that the constitution’s procedures have precedence over any committee standing resolutions or codes of conduct, the Misconduct clause is totally unnecessary and should be removed from the CMCOC. Panels have no constitutional standing and no rules The use of a “panel” rather than a “sub-committee” introduces all kinds of problems. I suspect that a “panel” was introduced to get around the problem of the President presiding over his own misconduct hearing as the President has to be on a sub-committee - it’s in the constitution! We have rules in the constitution that apply to committee meetings and rules that apply to sub-committee meetings, but we don’t have any rules that apply to “panels”. For example –
Once this “panel” makes it decision, a panel made up of the rest of the committee then votes to accept or not accept the decision. As the President is in the rest of the committee, the attempt to prevent the President presiding over his own misconduct trial hasn’t really gone away! And why doesn’t the whole committee participate in the final vote? The current “panel” system with “the rest of the committee” making the final decision actually allows a person to be found guilty of misconduct even though the majority of the committee thought the person was innocent! For example, there are 13 people on the SBW committee. Assume 5 of them are on the first panel and they vote 5 to nil that the person is innocent. They present their findings to the 8 people in the “rest of the committee” who vote 5 to 3 that the person is guilty. The person gets kicked off the committee despite 8 committee members thinking they were innocent, and only 5 thinking they were guilty. How stupid is that?! Why introduce such a terrible system when there is absolutely no need for it? We already have Section 13 of the constitution which deals with the “Disciplining of members” where a member of the club has either failed to comply with the constitution or has wilfully acted in a matter prejudicial to the interests of the club. How can any actions of misconduct taken by a committee member not be covered by the provisions of Section 13? Either get rid of the entire Misconduct section, or have the decision made by the entire committee. And does it really matter whether or not the President presides over his own misconduct trial? The rest of the CMCOC The "Important note" in the newly revised SBW committee Members Code of Conduct is irrational. It states “Under this Code, the conduct described in the dot points above without asterisks (*) is expected, as distinct from required, conduct.” The double negative in this statement is incredibly confusing. It would be much clearer and much more succinct to say, "the conduct required in the dot points with asterisks is required". However, even this is stupid! It should be the conduct with the asterisks that is not required. At the moment, if a point says “I will do something”* then I must do it. But if it says “I will do something” then I don’t have to do it. Anyway, the inclusion of the asterisks in the CMCOC means there are some things a committee member must do and some things a committee member is expected to do but is not actually required to do. These are currently jumbled together and should be separated – e.g. Things I must do
And why would the CMCOC need to contain a list of things a committee member doesn’t have to do? Saying that the things on the list are expected but not required doesn't make any difference - they still don't have to be done! In summary, I suggest the committee get rid of the Misconduct clause, get rid of the things that a committee member doesn't have to do, and simply list the conduct that is required. Isn't that what a Code of Conduct should do - list the conduct that is required? Cheers, Brett |
        |
