So there has been a lot of discussion lately about EGMS, changes to the constitution, introduction of AGMs etc and as part of my role on the board I’ve taken the last couple of weeks to look at what could potentially change and what happens next.
We want to get any changes implemented for the next election cycle and we’ve delayed that slightly to the end of September rather than mid September but we are still up against a tight timescale to do get official notice of a general meeting with the resolutions to vote on etc out and in order for us to keep to starting the elections by the end of September we need to get official notice of a general meeting out by the 4th of September… Why is this important? because these changes effect everyone and as such we want your feedback as a member prior to official resolutions being wrote up.
The Powerpoint below gives an overview of the changes etc but the detail in is in the google doc linked below also. Please comment using the comment tool on the google doc your thoughts or any suggested changes etc no later than 12pm Thursday 3rd September. Alternatively reply to this thread but its helpful to keep the comments in the gdoc and feel free to use the forum to ask any questions etc about these changes if your not sure of something.
The board has had this for the last few days so you will already see comments on this document.
Hackspace Manchester - Proposed Governance Changes.pdf (1.7 MB)
Google Docs Link
A question about the structure? HacMan is a company limited by guarentee, is it classed as a non-profit? Are we registered as a charity/is that something worth doing?
I like this a lot, I think it will be good to be able to have more people involved, with specific roles so that things don’t get lost or forgotten about. The co-chairs seem like a sensible idea as their job is just to chair and lead, the actual workings happen from the board members.
Just want to make sure it is clear that the H&S role is not liable or indeed responsible for H&S overall. If that were the case, every tool would need to be locked out immediately, until a risk assessment was done and published alongside training which would be unacceptable for most of the membership I assume. The aim of H&S role should be to drive the continuous improvement, keep oversight, and keep pressure on the board and members to get risk assessments done, and failing so, to take tools out of use.
you pretty much got the H&S role spot on. none of the roles mean the person is responsible for everything related to that role they are more the person that takes the lead on that at a board level and makes use of the subcommittee and other teams to get stuff done basically.
We are a company limited by guarentee… whenever or not charitable status would be the best thing for the space is a question that causes about the same amount of debate as should we move to slack… personally I think we benefit but its also a lot of additional work and compliance so it might be something we look at doing down the line but i think we first need to get the basics in governance right before we can add on the extra pressures of charitable compliance etc