The great constitution turnoff?

Anyone who suffers from insomnia might do well to meditate on the word "constitution". So it would appear from the limited response to date (perhaps around a dozen, I gather) to the Society's invitation to the profession for views on its proposals to update its governing rules, the weaknesses in which were exposed in the recent ABS saga.

This despite much coverage in the various news sites and in the Society's regular membership emails. And the closing date for responses is tomorrow, so that matters can be reviewed ahead of next month's Council meeting, and in turn the September SGM.

Credit, then, to the Scottish Law Agents Society for taking a critical look at the proposals and putting in a detailed submission which is also posted to its website (see our news coverage, which links to the full version, although you need to read that alongside the Society's drafts).

Not surprisingly it is the provisions affecting the rights of individual members on which SLAS finds most to comment – such as the numbers needed to propose a resolution, or more fundamentally to requisition a general meeting or call a referendum. For resolutions the Society proposes 20 instead of 10; for a requisition 100 instead of 20 (general meeting) or 50 (referendum). SLAS would keep the 10 signatures required for a resolution, and for requisitions proposes the single figure of 42, which I suppose at least has the merit of being the answer to life, the Universe and everything in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

At the end of the day a balance has to be struck between encouraging the democratic process and not burdening the Society (and the members who pay for it) with matters raised on the whim of a few individuals. Where that requires the line to be drawn is a matter of judgment, though not necessarily kept at the same proportion of an expanding and changing profession. On that approach there might be more to be said for keeping a lower number necessary for a motion, which will not add significantly to meeting costs, and revising the requirement at least for a special general meeting, as the 20 figure does seem very low.

The Law Agents also object to the removal of the power of a general meeting to bind Council, making the interesting argument that it is "inconsistent with the responsibility of the Law Society set out at section 1 of the 1980 Act that the Society be prevented from binding Council in motions from general meetings", the discharge of which is the Society's and not the Council's responsibility. Personally I suspect the membership would be liable to be feel disempowered by a complete removal, and therefore more disengaged from the Society. The present position, which would allow a vote at two successive general meetings to bind Council, may not be so bad after all in this respect.

One other matter may be worth a comment here. The current draft proposes the election of Council members to geographical constituencies, as at present though subject to revision of numbers, and the appointment of up to 12 members representing interest groups within the profession, via the Society's new nominations committee process. SLAS believes, "for the purposes of democratic accountability", that the number of appointed members should be kept to a practicable minimum and that the sectoral representatives should also be elected.

I foresee practical difficulties here. It may be fine for a group with an objectively defined membership such as the in-house lawyers – though even here, given the regularity with which people change jobs, the problems of keeping an up-to-date electoral roll would be significant – but what if it were felt that, say, family lawyers (to include those who do other court work as well?), or NQs (another constantly changing category, however defined), or some other significant but less defined sector should have a voice? Given that it is proposed to make the nominations committee bound to have regard to whether a sector is already represented in deciding who to appoint, i.e. to aim for a balance of sector interests, this is arguably the better approach for the effective representation of the profession on Council.

But let's at least hear some further views on all this.