Proposed constitution and elections

A summary of the terms of the proposed constitution is now available on the website. You can also download the full document as a PDF.  The public meeting on the 6th will vote on whether to adopt the constitution.

Are you interested in being on the Committee of the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum?

If so, you can nominate yourself at the meeting of 6th February or you can contact the Chairman of the Forum Steering Group – Patrick French – email pfrenchster@gmail.com

You can also contact Patrick if you want more information about the Committee.

2 thoughts on “Proposed constitution and elections

  1. Michael Kendall

    I have a number of comments on the proposed constitution:
    5.1 You state – ‘Camden Councillors elected to represent the Area shall be ex-officio members of the Committee.’ Given that the DPNF needs to be free to criticise Camden Council where it deems this appropriate, this could place the Councillors in an awkward position. It would be better if they have the right to attend such meetings as non-members, and the Committee would be entitled to exclude all non-members of the DPNF from some meetings or parts of meetings if considered appropriate.

    5.5 You state that ‘at least one person age under 26’ should be on the Committee. I agree, but I think there should also be ‘at least one person age 60 or over’. I agree that ‘ every effort should be made to ensure etc. but please no tokenism …e.g. saying ‘we must have a disabled person’ even if none is elected nor deemed suitable to be co-opted.

    5.8 Better I think to say not more than three years rather than two. Important to ensure continuty as well as a measure of rotation. It should be common practice (but not a requirement) for the Vice-Chair to become the next Chair.

    5.14 ‘Each member of the Committee …shall not be paid…’ However I would add ‘but may claim reasonable expenses’ e.g. a particularly large telephone bill.

    6.2 Bank Account. ‘two signatories (one of whom shall be the Chair). I suggest ‘one of whom should usually be the Treasurer’ instead . I also think three or four names of Committee members should be put forward as entitled to sign, although only two of them would required on one occasion. We need to allow for signatories going on holiday or possible illness – this could lead to an awkward situation if only two are entitled to sign and a cheque is urgently needed. All names will of course need to be registered with the bank.

    1. DPNF Post author

      As agreed at the meeting, Michael’s comments will be considered by the incoming Committee who will anyway be keeping the constitution under review.

Comments are closed.