Add Time Limits To General Meetings

[bradleysigma]

This adds a few time limits for general meetings, to avoid going until 3:00am and only letting people with nothing better to do vote on important matters. It also gives members a concrete upper limit to how long meetings can be.

• General Meetings must start within half a hour;
• Annual General Meetings cannot finish until everything required has been done;
• General Meetings are limited to the times given in their notice. If no time limit is given, then they are limited to four hours. For Annual General Meetings, however, the previous requirement takes precedence.

[firefried-fries]

Does this mean a delayed general meeting can be indefinitely delayed should every subsequent general meeting failed to open with 30 minutes of their promised timeline as well?

[bradleysigma]

If the meeting continues to not start each time, then sure, but presumably the meeting was called for a reason, and so that reason needs to be resolved somehow.

[firefried-fries]

For the exception of AGM, should the delay goes the against the deadline specified in section 15 of the constitution, it may be good to specify that the latest date should not exceed the timeline specified in section 15.

15 Timing of Annual General Meetings
15.1 Each Annual General Meeting of the Society must be held:
at least once each year; and
within three (3) months after the end of the Society's previous financial year.

UQCS will also be disbanded if an AGM is not held by the deadline given by UQ Union, thus I believe this is good to add.

[bradleysigma]

If the AGM isn't even getting declared open multiple times, then I suspect the society is on its way to collapse anyway.

FWIW, if the meeting is otherwise ready to begin, but the president will not declare it open, I would classify that as "the President is unwilling to act" for section 20.1, allowing anybody to become chair.

I'm happy to change section 15.1 to make it clear that it only applies to the first attempt for the AGM?

[49Indium]

I do have some concerns about the 30 minute time limit for starting the meeting. Whilst it would be ideal for meetings to start on time, I personally think that it would be more harmful for a meeting to be delayed over two weeks, especially if there are people ready for a meeting at the venue on the original date.
I appologise that this is not very constructive feedback; I don't have any suggestions on how this can be improved.

[JamesDearlove]

Does introducing 20.5 and 20.6 create an issue where technically if the room loses quorum (or worse everyone leaves) and the business required in 16.1 is not complete, the meeting is never closed?

[bradleysigma]

Not any more.

[bradleysigma]

30 minutes is, as far as I can tell, a "standard" duration to wait before declaring the meeting lapsed.

From the Model rules for incorporated associations registered in Queensland:

UQU:

[bradleysigma]

I've made an update that also adds that an SGMs must take place within one month of whatever event triggers them. The current wording requires the notice to be sent out within 14 days, but the secretary could, in theory, schedule the SGM itself for 2099.

This update also makes a distinction, by context, between "section" and "clause". A section consists of a number of clauses under a header. E.g. section 17 "Special General Meeting" consists of clauses 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3.

[q-horton]

Whilst I think the four hour limit is quite reasonable, I disagree with advertised end times being given (and thus recognised in this change), this feels like it's rife for abuse and/or unexperienced guesstimates that result in necessary business not being transacted, and including it in the constitution is just encouraging them to be set.

I would possibly suggest that the four hours should be measured from the actual start time rather than advertised (though given there are exceptions for AGMs, I make no complaints about 3.5 hours as the cap with maximum starting delay).

On the first point, I also cite myself from about a month ago (Horton, 2025):

https://discord.com/channels/813324385179271168/813404583103168594/1362714301164683488

[bradleysigma]

Like you, my suggestion would be "just don't announce end times".

If my maths is correct, the SGM II opened with 111 votes in the room (attendees plus proxies). However, only 87 votes were cast for the presidential election, decreasing with each subsequent election. The end time was announced for 7:00pm, when a lot of people had to leave, and the elections started after that.

I feel that announcing end times but going past them is also rife for abuse etc.

The intent behind this is to let members know exactly what they're in for. It may also give a sense of urgency to the proceedings, which should hopefully speed things up.

[jgat]

some brief thoughts from an old-timer (credential: I co-wrote the original constitution in 2011, adapting from the UQU template; and I've been in governance settings for a couple of other orgs)

• Instead of setting time limits for the meeting as a whole; create procedures/standing orders for how to conduct general meetings. It might seem rigid, but if it stops you from having meetings go out of control, it'll be worth it. e.g.—
  • the chairperson has various powers to ensure orderly & efficient business—choosing who may speak, calling the room to order, taking procedural actions to move business along
  • members indicate their willingness to speak by standing up and/or raising hands and/or moving to a microphone
  • when speaking in debate on an agenda item, the speaker has a time limit. (Implicit is that there's someone assisting the chairperson to keep time.)
  • voting on any matter can be taken by voices (assuming that any person present without voting powers is clearly distinguishable, e.g. sitting in a designated area), with fallback options to vote by hands or ballot only when needed
  • the chairperson may at any time put any procedural matter to a vote (and members may move procedural motions, which the chairperson can then put), e.g.
    • whether a matter has been sufficiently debated (which, if resolved, is immediately followed by a vote on the matter itself)
    • whether to stop debate on a matter and not vote on it (perhaps also delegating actions to a person or committee, like preparing a different proposal to get the matter addressed in a future meeting)
    • whether to temporarily override the standing orders with a different procedure (either for a particular agenda item, or for the remainder of the meeting)
    • whether to adjourn, or take a recess, or appoint a different chairperson (e.g. if the chairperson can't control the meeting)
• (broader than just this one pull request) It seems like a bother that UQCS's only legislative document is its constitution (which requires a general meeting to update), and that you have to propose several constitution updates per year? Perhaps stuff like this would be better codified in separate policies/by-laws that the elected committee can update themselves (and if there's concerns about centralising power; use the constitution to set limits on what the committee can/can't do).
  • Personal opinion: an efficient governance system ought to have a stable constitution—i.e. rarely updated, because it codifies everything that requires debate from the whole body of members, and delegates pragmatics to elected & accountable committees that can run more efficiently than a general meeting.

Nit-picking on specific phrasing:

• "constructively underway" is vague and probably serves little purpose. Something like "if the chairperson has not declared quorum" is clearer about whether the condition has been met (since declaring quorum should always be the first agenda item).
  • Or, fold it into the "inquorate for a continuous duration of 30 minutes" clause (since the meeting might be opened inquorate, which starts that 30 minute timer). (For example, the meeting might be minuted as "The chairperson opened the meeting at 4:00pm; the meeting lapsed at 4:30pm, being inquorate for 30 minutes.")
  • If the intention is to abort meetings that are quorate but not being constructive, I would suggest that this is not a reason to lapse. Instead, the chairperson has the authority to adjourn the meeting, and they have an implicit expectation to use that authority if they cannot conduct the meeting. (If things get really unruly, allow members to elect a different chairperson who will conduct the meeting effectively or adjourn it.)

[ENGGP]

Motioned tabled for next GM