Transition Sheffield - Discussion Forum

Hi everyone,

A request was made that we should have a constitution for Transition Sheffield. This means that we can have a bank account and have the option of applying for relevant funding.

The simplest type of constitution is for unincorporated organisations. I got a basic one from Voluntary Action Sheffield, and modified it to suit us.

I've uploaded it into the wiki at: https://wiki.transitionsheffield.org.uk/Constitution.
The principles it refers to can be found at: https://wiki.transitionsheffield.org.uk/Aims

So, if you have any suggestions or issues with it then do shout up.

Next steps:
Once we've agreed to use this constitution, we'll need three names on the document, as an initial committee. We do have a volunteer to act as a treasurer and I guess others might come from original members of the hub group. However we'll have a Sheffield-wide Transition event at which we can have a speedy AGM and give other people a chance to stand on the committee. This will be announced on the Sheffield-wide announcements list.

Sounds good but one thing I'm unclear about now the hub group has gone is: Who is Transition Sheffield? Does it even exist beyond a web site and e-mail list? Would a constitution be more appropriate now for local groups?

There is certainly city wide stuff that is going ahead. I heard a food conference is planned for next year. But I'm unclear how this will be funded and who (which groups or people) will organise the funds.

Having said all that I've still got some money from DVD sales etc. Putting it in a bank might be good (if they don't all go bust that is) but still unclear about how it would be spent and who would decide how much gets spent on what projects?

Is a committee just the return of the hub group or something different? Would it just be making decisions about money? If so maybe that could be done with some online voting software for full participation. After all we already have polling software on the main site.

Good questions Steve.
Here's how I see things:

The hub group stopped having frequent regular meetings. I don't know if it has disbanded completely. [That's probably a conversation to continue in a seperate response...}

The communications stuff (web and email) are probably the most visible Sheffield-wide part of Transition Sheffield. But it is an organisation which aims to support individuals and groups (local or themed or project-based) in doing Transition stuff in Sheffield. And to a greater or lesser extent, those individuals, and groups are a part of Transition Sheffield.

Good suggestion about a constitution for local groups. Perhaps this one could form the basis for local groups to adapt and adopt. However, in many instances, a small group which wants to get something up and running and has the potential to deposit cash into a bank account may not want to go through the whole rigmarole. Transition Sheffield can provide this service on behalf of local groups. Such groups should probably be responsible for maintaining a wiki page with their accounts.

Making decisions about how to spend a particular stash of money should probably be up to whoever generated it initially. Although I like the idea of online poll, and perhaps a discussion thread/page with requests and offers?!

Susannah wrote:The hub group stopped having frequent regular meetings. I don't know if it has disbanded completely. [That's probably a conversation to continue in a seperate response...}

Ahhh. Unfortunately I missed the last couple of hub group meetings. But exactly what it's status is now would seem a key issue and really need clarifying as other stuff - like constitution and money - will flow from that. I know that previously Ronin had suggested having a completely new group of people for the hub, which seemed like a good idea.

Making decisions about how to spend a particular stash of money should probably be up to whoever generated it initially. Although I like the idea of online poll, and perhaps a discussion thread/page with requests and offers?!

There is a pot of cash generated from stalls/dvds sales that was initially meant for the hub group to at least decide what it goes on. I know some local groups (Heeley) have raised some cash by themselves and used it as they wish, which is all fine and well but, but doesn't really address the questions of constitution, money, hub group etc.

I think some money should go to Chris for web costs - certificates etc. I guess we'll do some more stalls as, like you say, the site and e-mail contact are still the first point of entry for most people.

What about using the Seeds for Change model rules:

Sample constitution for groups
This is a sample constitution for groups (unincorporated associations) to adapt and use - you may need a constitution if your group wants to open a bank account or apply for funding.

• Open Document Format ODT - 33k
• DOC - 120k Microsoft Word.

These incorporate consensus already...

Cheers Chris.

I've posted a second draft at https://wiki.transitionsheffield.org.uk/Constitution, based on the Seeds for Change model. I've generally gone for a middle option on the consensus front, allowing decisions to be postponed for a meeting if necessary, but allowing a vote if necessary. Comments please!

Ps. Seeds for Change are fab! Went to a workshop by them some years ago, and was very impressed.

Nice one Susannah.

Susannah wrote:I've generally gone for a middle option on the consensus front, allowing decisions to be postponed for a meeting if necessary, but allowing a vote if necessary. Comments please!

As far as I recall the Hub group never had a need to resort to a vote, I'm not totally convinced that we need to have this fall-back option -- I have a lot of experience of groups being wrecked via manipulation of majority voting (for example the Sheffield anti-war group that was big in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion and which was taken over by one political party via packing it's meetings and thus winning votes). I don't however have any experience of a group being wrecked via consensus, thought I have no doubt that this has happened...

One other thought -- how will members be defined and do we need to define this? I assume that all people active in a local Transition Initiative in Sheffield will count as members -- is this how it would be best done -- left to local groups to define members? What about people in a part of Sheffield with no local group? Should the constitution reflect that Transition Sheffield is a network of organisations itself and not primarily a membership based organisation?

Susannah wrote:Should the constitution reflect that Transition Sheffield is a network of organisations itself and not primarily a membership based organisation?

I think this might be a good idea - with individuals joining their local Transition group, and groups joining (affiliating to) Transition Sheffield. The role of TS might then be: supporting these groups, promoting info sharing, networking and learning between them, and facilitating joint events, activities between the local groups.

Chris - I've seen a group wrecked by 'consensus' which becomes a minority veto, although I agree when it is working properly it is the most useful approach. May be helpful to have a fallback voting option though, perhaps with membership limited to so many reps per local group to prevent the kind of thing you mention.

Craig

craig wrote:
I think this might be a good idea - with individuals joining their local Transition group, and groups joining (affiliating to) Transition Sheffield. The role of TS might then be: supporting these groups, promoting info sharing, networking and learning between them, and facilitating joint events, activities between the local groups.

OK, I've tried to reflect these ideas in the third draft, but I've described them as 'organisations' for two reasons:
- Transition Sheffield itself is described as 'the group' in the language of the constitution.
- This allows themed groups such as Grow Sheffield and Sheffield Renewables to have a say, not just local groups.

I haven't put the bit about 'supporting' other groups in the doc, as it becomes a bit circular. Other groups need to agree with the principles and processes for Transition Sheffield decision making, not with how the hub group chooses to embody those principles.

craig wrote:
Chris - I've seen a group wrecked by 'consensus' which becomes a minority veto, although I agree when it is working properly it is the most useful approach. May be helpful to have a fallback voting option though, perhaps with membership limited to so many reps per local group to prevent the kind of thing you mention.

Craig

This sounds as though it is a point which needs a few more voices involved. I'll send an email out. NB. The forthcoming Seeds 4 Change workshop could help to resolve this.

NB. Last point for now: I'm open to change on how many reps from each group gets to participate. Two reps makes it reasonably easy to achieve quorum - representatives from three groups would be enough, but if there are loads of groups wanting to participate in a big meeting then it's simpler to have one spokesperson from each group.