Author Topic: BFA administrator vacancy  (Read 2719 times)

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
BFA administrator vacancy
« on: January 24, 2016, 10:15:26 PM »
One other bit of awards business: I got around to writing up a job description for any potential awards administrators for 2017 to have a look at. You can see it in the Job Vacancies thread. Don't worry, I'll be doing this year as promised in my AGM proposal, but best to start looking sooner rather than later for a replacement.

I'll be stepping down because, like I said in my AGM proposal, the awards in their current form require too much work to be sustainable in the long term, at least for me. So I would only recommend the post to someone who is very good at this kind of thing and/or has a lot of free time to throw at it - both would be best!

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 04:45:16 PM »
Just to add to this, now it has its own thread, if you are interested in taking over this job, you might be thinking of making changes to the way the awards are run. If those changes fit within the awards constitution as it is, no problem. There is quite a bit of leeway for tweaking things in certain areas.

But if your plan would require changes to the awards constitution, that can only happen at the AGM, so you may want to roll up to the 2016 AGM with a proposal to make those changes, or you'll be stuck with the current rules for another year. (Unless my proposal held over from 2015 passes, but I think that's unlikely.)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 05:55:59 PM by Stephen Theaker »

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2016, 04:43:18 PM »
If anyone is thinking of standing for election as awards administrator at September's AGM, you might fancy having a look at the handover document I've written for the next awards admin basically just my tasklist for the job, plus a few bits of advice. There's a lot of latitude for doing things very differently, but it should give you a good general idea of what's involved, month by month, and give you a chance to start making plans. Read it here if you're interested. I'll update the pdf if I think of anything else or spot any mistakes before the AGM, but I'll leave it alone after that, obviously.

Offline Phil Lunt

  • BFS Reviewers
  • Thaumaturge
  • *****
  • Posts: 148
  • BFS Chair, collector of Boojums
    • View Profile
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 11:09:56 AM »
If anyone is thinking of standing for election as awards administrator at September's AGM...

I'll just point out to members that there seems to be a bit of confusion about this, and wording in the constitution could be clearer, I'll admit, which is something I hope to rectify at the 2016 AGM.

The Awards Admin role isn't actually an elected position but one appointed by the Chair. The only member elected roles on the committee are President (unless President for Life), Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, being "Executive Officers" of the committee. That any roles other than these were "voted on" or "elected" at past AGMs seems to have been more ceremony than anything and I apologise to members for any confusion caused.

If anyone 'is' interested in the role, and no decisions have been made as yet, then please feel free to email me at chair@britishfantasysociety.org

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2016, 11:40:27 AM »
No, the only committee posts that are exempt from stepping down at the AGM and standing for re-election are the web admin and the publication editors, as below. But if no one stands for election then the chair can appoint someone.

Quote
4.3 The Committee shall stand down at the AGM and may stand for re-election. This clause shall exclude officers who are members of the Committee by virtue of editing Society publications and the website administrator.

Offline Andy W Marsden

  • BFS Secretary
  • Global Moderator
  • Initiate
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Call me Doc. I write horror.
    • View Profile
    • AWMarsden.com
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2016, 06:20:03 PM »
Quote
3.1 The following officers are elected by and from the membership of the Society. They will have the following duties and responsibilities in addition to those listed elsewhere in the Constitution.

It then goes on to list the President, Chair, Treasurer and Secretary.

Although section 4.1 lists additional members of the Committee, and 4.3 as you note states the exemptions, this confuses the issue. The executive committee *must* stand down and be re-elected, but all other positions are open to interpretation. Given that they are usually appointed by the chair, and there is no great need or cause to change that, that's how it will remain for the foreseeable future. Not a clear-cut section in the Constitution and it definitely needs cleaning up.
I should probably stop volunteering for things...

Twitter/Instagram: @AndyWMarsden

Offline Phil Lunt

  • BFS Reviewers
  • Thaumaturge
  • *****
  • Posts: 148
  • BFS Chair, collector of Boojums
    • View Profile
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2016, 06:28:00 PM »
No, the only committee posts that are exempt from stepping down at the AGM and standing for re-election are the web admin and the publication editors, as below. But if no one stands for election then the chair can appoint someone.

Quote
4.3 The Committee shall stand down at the AGM and may stand for re-election. This clause shall exclude officers who are members of the Committee by virtue of editing Society publications and the website administrator.

There's an element of interpretation at play, here, I think. I know it says that at 4.3, but it also says the only committee members who are voted in specifically by and from the membership of the Society are President, Chair, Treasurer and Secretary (The entirety of Section 3 of the constitution covers that).

It then talks about everyone stepping down and being re-elected, as you pointed out in section 4.3, but not anything about them being elected in the initial instance, apart from the Executive Officers mentioned in section 3. The stepping down and being re-elected bit should only refer to the Executive Officers (That the Editors and Web Admin are the only committee members "bullet proof", as it where, is questionable though makes sense for consistency) OR all named committee members should be listed in Section 3, but they're not.

I've checked this out with past Chairs and the general consensus is that Awards Admin, the Publication Editors, Publicity, Events Co-ordinator and Web Admin are positions that are appointed roles, not elected, but that the issue has been obfuscated over time and may require clarification due to any misinterpretation being stated as the rule.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 06:41:48 PM by Phil Lunt »

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2016, 10:36:49 PM »
I think I'm right in saying that there have been elections for these committee posts under at least the last six chairs, because of para 4.3, but if you've decided not to hold elections for these posts now because you interpret the constitution differently, it's great that you've announced it here and explained your reasoning to the membership.

Offline Phil Lunt

  • BFS Reviewers
  • Thaumaturge
  • *****
  • Posts: 148
  • BFS Chair, collector of Boojums
    • View Profile
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2016, 12:16:17 AM »
I think I'm right in saying that there have been elections for these committee posts under at least the last six chairs, because of para 4.3, but if you've decided not to hold elections for these posts now because you interpret the constitution differently, it's great that you've announced it here and explained your reasoning to the membership.

Excellent! Glad we're on the same page.

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2016, 02:12:24 PM »
Given that they are usually appointed by the chair, and there is no great need or cause to change that, that's how it will remain for the foreseeable future.

Just noticed this - this just isn't true. These have all been treated as elected posts for a good long while now. As long as I've been on the committee, the chairs have only appointed people to these positions when people have quit in the middle of the year. I was elected to the post of awards admin every year that I attended the AGM, and Phil himself joined the BFS committee for the first time after being elected publicity officer at the September 2014 AGM.

As you might say, there is no great need or cause to change that, because the committee being elected has worked very well, but Phil's decided to interpret the constitution differently, and to this extent I think that's up to him - the position he's taking is at least arguable. And if anyone really doesn't like it, they have the option of running against him for election as chair, and running things the way they want, or of proposing a change to the constitution.

That's what I liked about awards admin being an elected post - it means you've got the backing of the AGM and thus the society, and it means you can say to members, if you don't like how I go about it, stand for election against me and convince people your way is better.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2016, 04:08:59 PM by Stephen Theaker »

Offline Andy W Marsden

  • BFS Secretary
  • Global Moderator
  • Initiate
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Call me Doc. I write horror.
    • View Profile
    • AWMarsden.com
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2016, 12:05:44 AM »
Except for last year, where only the four Executive Committee members were elected. The rest (including you) were appointed.

I get what you're saying, and that is the wording of the Constitution is not clear, and needs correcting at a future AGM. It mentions only that the Executive posts must be voted in, then talks about all Committee positions standing down to be reelected. It contradicts itself, and we'll fix that, bit at a time, until we have a constitution that is clear and concise and suits the needs of the Society and Membership.

I share Phil's view that the four Executives are what are required to run the Society, and the rest are all additional roles that support them. These are open to change as we need to, and can be redeployed or removed if necessary. They must be dynamic enough to remain relevant to our needs.
I should probably stop volunteering for things...

Twitter/Instagram: @AndyWMarsden

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2016, 12:42:41 AM »
I get what you're saying, and that is the wording of the Constitution is not clear, and needs correcting at a future AGM. It mentions only that the Executive posts must be voted in, then talks about all Committee positions standing down to be reelected. It contradicts itself, and we'll fix that, bit at a time, until we have a constitution that is clear and concise and suits the needs of the Society and Membership.

No, I'm not saying that at all. It says at 3.1 that those members are elected, and then says at 4.3 that the rest of us are as well, except for the webmaster and the publication editors. No contradiction there, just two overlapping groups of people who all have to stand for election.

Except for last year, where only the four Executive Committee members were elected. The rest (including you) were appointed.

So elections to the committee were suspended without the committee being told?

Offline Andy W Marsden

  • BFS Secretary
  • Global Moderator
  • Initiate
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Call me Doc. I write horror.
    • View Profile
    • AWMarsden.com
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2016, 10:37:21 AM »
Exactly, it's so much of a grey area even you're going round in circles. That's my point, it needs a re-write to clear it up.

The general consensus is that the Officers must be elected/re-elected, and that the others are appointed positions. I can see the addition of Publicity Officer joining that group, as that role is, again, key to the running of the Society.

All the rest of the committee needs to remain appointed, simply to allow for change in the future. We may realise midway through the year that we need a new position, or need to split one role into two, but having all those roles elected means we can't do that without going to the AGM, going through the motions of proposing the change of role, etc. Which is just throwing us back into the dark ages. We're talking about moving forward with the Society, and that means being as dynamic as possible. I get that, in previous years, elections have been held. We're saying they are unnecessary, and last year's AGM reflected a process that was clear, concise, open, and above board. It is all minuted, all above board.

No-one's trying to be unconstitutional, no-one's trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. We're being open and honest and saying "This isn't working like that, it used to be like this, it should always have been like this, it just got muddied over the years." Once everyone does that, we can move forward. We can fix the constitution to the best practice over time. Let's keep moving forward, rather than chasing our tails over technicalities and wordings that are fully open to interpretation in more than one way.
I should probably stop volunteering for things...

Twitter/Instagram: @AndyWMarsden

Offline Rolnikov

  • TQF co-editor
  • BFS Reviewers
  • Elder Darkness
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
    • Theaker's Quarterly Fiction
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2016, 11:30:17 AM »
Going around in circles? I think that the positions are elected, same as I have always done.

The elections for those posts were suspended without the committee being told, without the membership being told, without any kind of announcement appearing on the website, or forum, or in the journal, or bulletin, and without even the volunteers for the positions being told that there hadn't been an election. It's not even mentioned in the AGM minutes. That's a funny kind of open and honest.

Last September's bulletin, discussing the upcoming AGM, described awards admin as an elected post, without any comment to the contrary from the committee when the bulletin was supplied in advance for checking, and all the subsequent bulletins did the same, again without comment from the committee when drafts were supplied in advance. So did the announcement of the AGM on the website. The two bulletins you've done yourself continue to describe it as an elected post.

If you make a big decision, and you're confident that you're doing the right thing, tell people about it. This is what we talked about earlier in the year, when we discussed the best time to release the minutes - if people aren't informed of decisions made, they can't put them into effect. But at least it's out now, and perhaps it's good that it came out in this particular thread.

Offline Andy W Marsden

  • BFS Secretary
  • Global Moderator
  • Initiate
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Call me Doc. I write horror.
    • View Profile
    • AWMarsden.com
Re: BFA administrator vacancy
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2016, 03:41:31 PM »
It is "out", and that is of paramount importance. The previous ways of working (many have not been consistent, let's face it) now need to be brought into line.

I'm fully behind Phil's way of thinking, and there were no problems highlighted at the AGM as to how things were handled there, by committee posts appointed or general members in attendance. Which speaks volumes in and of itself, i.e. This is how it is, it works, no big deal, let's move on.

The constitution isn't clear, and that's wrong: it must be totally bulletproof. It isn't. We'll rectify that, it won't be easy, and some people won't agree. And that's perfectly okay. It brings about informed debate. We need everyone to make sure they read whatever proposals are put forward carefully, bring their thoughts to the table, and discuss them wholeheartedly. What we mustn't do is get stuck in the same circle of complaining about what's already been done, like in previous years.

I get the feeling this year's AGM will be long, and productive, and I'm really looking forward to it.
I should probably stop volunteering for things...

Twitter/Instagram: @AndyWMarsden