As I have previously mentioned, there has been interest in understanding what the new Constitutions offer in the short time that they have been available - so today just a few of the points that have drawn my attention from the Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah Constitution.
This certainly shouldn't be considered an exhaustive examination, nor a form of legal advice; just some of the issues of interest that have jumped out at me in the early days.
SECTION - DEFINITIONS
'Eligible Director' means a person...
(c) who is not an employee of the Company or Yeshivah Hebrew School(YHS) other than Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Groner
(i) I'm still looking (and happy) to be corrected on the first matter here - but I haven't seen a Yeshivah Hebrew School in the Definition Section or referred to anywhere else in this document - so I'm not sure what it's doing here. Plenty of reference to the YHS in the Chabad Institutions of Victoria (CVL) constitution, but again, not in the definition section. So, if someone can send me to a Clause that identifies it in location to the YBR in this constitution, that would be great.
(ii) I'm never happy to see a built in reference to an individual in a constitution and we see Rabbi C.T. Groner referred to on several instances in this constitution. It really has nothing to do with the person, whether some people want him/her there or don't. It's just not good practice. It means if for some reason that person can't continue on the Board and there are any number of reasons this might be the case, ill-health, failure to meet their obligations to attend sufficient consecutive meetings, moving residence overseas, failure to be considered fit and proper in line with the Act or any range of other reasons, it's going to require an amendment not just to positions on the Board, but far more cumbersome, to the Constitution. This requires an Extraordinary General Meeting with requisite Special Resolutions and the inevitable cost associated with re-registering the constitution. All easily avoidable.
OBJECTS
3.1 PRINCIPAL OBJECTS The principal objects of the Company are to...
(l) provide facilities for special attention required by the gifted, people with disabilities, and other persons requiring assistance or special attention.
(i) This is what I call a bit of a warm-fuzzy - it's sitting there, has a great sound and is probably the result of some fine intentions but actually could cause the school a great deal of trouble. It's a commitment clause; the words outline a commitment to activity and not one that is easy to keep. The Constitution would be better off addressing this issue in a more realistic and aspirational manner, e.g. seeking to support the potential of all students, within the capacity of the schools.
...marcia pinskier
...marcia pinskier
No comments:
Post a Comment