[pp.int.general] Fwd: URGENT: Bestuurswissel | Change of PPNL board

[Patrick Mächler aka Valio]

Hi Ole,

Thanks for sharing the information! :)

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk> wrote:
> Samir told me that he wants the PP.nl statutes to include some minimal
> politics to avoid the party being hijacked. I disagree, and told him
> that the members of the party should decide on policy in the general
> assembly, and that if the members decide, there is no risk, as (almost)
> only pirates are going to be members. Policy issues should be kept
> separate from organisational issues.

I slightly disagree there.
It doesn't make sense to define explicit policies within the statutes,
but it does make sense to include a minimal purpose sentence about the
direction you're going to.
Sentences like this hardly can prevent the party of being hijacked;
what seems way more important to me, is the fact that it can serve as
a minimal basis of common ground in case of conflicts arising within
the party and why someone (hopefully) joined in the first place.
I.e. in the statutes of the Swiss pirate party we have:
===
The objectives of the PPS include:
* to promote free access to knowledge and culture;
* to strengthen the protection of privacy and informational
self-determination of the population;
* to fight media bans and censorship;
* to promote a transparent state;
* the restriction of harmful monopolies;
* the strengthening of human rights
===
But all policies are defined in a policy paper that is completely
separate from the statutes. This paper also includes policies whose
aims are not apparently defined by the statutes above, i.e. policies
on video games with violence and youth protection; and that's good as
it is, because it neither makes sense to be too detailed about the
purpose as you will loose flexibility.

> I do not want to dictate how the PP.nl statutes should look, but I want
> to give some advice: It looks to me like everybody in PP.nl wants the
> members to be in control in a democratic way. This means that the
> general assembly should be the highest authority, not the member
> council. Some parties have a member council besides a board, but the
> general assembly should elect both the board and the member council (if
> a member council is needed - we do not need it in PP.dk).

If it's a
* political party (not e.g. a non-political youth organization) and
* it is made up of natural persons (not legal ones; else you'd have delegates)
then I'd also say that it usually makes sense to have the general
assembly as highest authority.
But that doesn't mean, that the general assembly can't delegate
certain privileges to a member council till the next general assembly,
as long as such privileges could be revoked again by a general
assembly.
It certainly can make sense to have the executive (the board) by
default elected by an elected quasi-legislative (i.e. a member
council).
1) It adds flexibility, e.g. if a board position has to be reelected
due to death, etc.
2) It adds a gate-keeper function for board members; you have to gain
a certain level of reputation and trust among the member council, as
they are (hopefully) show some skeptic towards newcomers
3) It can help to build up a vital bond of trust between the executive
and the rest which might be otherwise missing, if the member council
will act as a institution between the executive and the other members

I know organizations that have a member council (e.g. my students
organization) and such without (e.g. my party). I'm not advocation for
one model or the other; of course a member council also can have
numerous cons, but it's not like as if there are would be no
advantages at all.
To me it really depends on the situation what model might serve the
common aim better.

- pat