List of actions that must go to membership approval before Board or other stakeholders can enact

The Afrikaburn constitution has a good list to prompt our thinking about this.

I think that the membership should be required to vote by a 3/4 majority on the following:
- changes to the constitution
- purchases of assets with values exceeding $25,000
- the disposal of assets with values exceeding $25,000
- the signing of leases for premises of a value greater than $25,000 Per annum
- the licensing of the Burning Seed marks to any organisation other than the wholly owned subsidiary currently called the Operational entity.
- the suspension of any member after the independent ombudsman has delivered their findings and the restorative justice process has been demonstrably exhausted. I.e. this is a last resort
- Changes in policies that involve sexual assault/harrassment
- Changes to the Bullying policy
- Changes to any policies pertaining to financial reporting


- Members should have the opportunity to vote for projects in grant rounds. This could be conditional upon the final approval of the Grants Committee who could take a popular vote into consideration without their duties to deliver viable projects aligned to the purposes being impeded.

Love it. Do you think we should put these or something like this into the proposal from the start?

Should it also have the ability to add/remove items from this list? I guess that would be changes to the constitution though?

Currently in another org i am involved there is this issue of the membership deciding something at an SGM/AGM and the board taking the position - we have heard you, however if we believe we are vulnerable and contarveing the responsibilities of being of the board if we implement it or not. What would the circuit breaker/response be in our proposed model?

That’s a really good question. My instinct says that if a Board refuses to implement the results of a vote that is constitutionally correct (I.e. a 2/3 majority of members voted to sell the farm) because their duties as directors would be contravened (I.e. the company would become insolvent without the income generated by visitors to the farm) there needs to be a resolution process defined in the constitution. I think we maybe need to ask Moore’s on this one.