[Procedures] Vetting: Mike Heichman's Quorum Adjustment proposal

[Owen Broadhurst]

I've been advocating a lower quorum ever since I first became involved in
the State Committee - but I do share Dan's reservations regarding the first
part of Mike's proposal.

>From what I have seen of most State Committee meetings since I became
involved, a 40% quorum alone ought to suffice in allowing the State
Committee to do business most meetings.

OB

On 11/1/06, Daniel Melnechuk <isis at isisdesign.com> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Reason for this Proposal:
>
> We have been having problems reaching quorum and this has been, in my
> opinion, a demoralizing obstacle for our State Commttee in its
> efforts to do our business. We should recognize that often our
> members miss State Comm. meetings because they are engaged in either
> important party or personal business. We should be able to move
> forward to the best of our abilities without their physical presence.
>
> Text:
>   A couple of options:
>
>   1. Members of State Committee who are not physically present at the
> State Comm. meeting and are conducting "legitimate party
> business" (campaigning, going to a party conference, attending a
> local chapter meeting, etc.) will be counted as present, for the
> purpose of meeting quorum. For the official report of the State
> Committee meeting, next to her/his name will be the reason(s) why s/
> he was not physically present.
>
> Those who will be missing the meeting will have the responsibility to
> notify the State Comm. that s/he will be unable to attend and the
> nature of their party business. Those members, who are physically
> present, by a majority vote, will decide whether or not to recognize
> the "absence" as fitting the category of being "present while
> conducting other legitimate party business".
>
>   2. The quorum number will be reduced to 40% of the current members
> of the State Committee.
>
> Note: The State Comm. could accept either or both of the above
> options or come up with a more creative process which would satisfy
> the intent of this proposal.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Note: i did not include all of Mike's proposal doc here since it is
> very long and was in the last email to this list.]
>
>
> The main issue here is reaching quorum at a state com meeting with
> the rule that we need 50% + 1 (rounded down) of seated state com reps
> (alternates do not count towards seated). Mike is concerned that we
> have a rule that places a burden on the party getting business done,
> and in fact has kept state com from making decisions at a physical
> meeting. The remedy tried last time this happened was to use
> electronic (email/phone) decision-making process which resulted in
> some proposals passing and some not.
>
> The impetus for having what i believe is as low a quorum as 50% is to
> ensure that not too small a representative body are making decisions
> for the whole. I believe that is in accordance with the our 10 Key
> Values. Why i think 50% is low is based on the model that we hash out
> proposal details at the meeting on a proposal that most of the time
> has had only one or two people actually read it and comment on it.
> This model, in my opinion, demands the highest quorum possible. I
> would prefer higher than 50% but i can live with 50% and in the 5
> years of being on the state com i can say that i have seen it work well.
>
> Actually, lots of people working spending time on vetting AT the
> state com meeting is burdensome itself. That is the reason i brought
> up the vetting process to ensure that more people see a proposal
> before hand and therefor have a better chance that the major concerns
> can be worked out before hand. This is not to say that all concerns
> will be brought up before a state com meeting by a vetting process.
>
> Of course we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot and not be
> able to get things done.
>
> So in the end, it is a balancing act of between being able to get
> things done at all and making sure that we have the most voices
> making the decision. That is how i see it. I lean to making sure we
> have the most voices and that is why i have been a strong supporter
> of keeping the 50% quorum rule. That said, i think some creative ways
> to deal with the issue of quorum should be considered.
>
> Mike proposes two things. Drop the % to 40. And allow ways to have
> people count towards quorum when they are not there.
>
> First i don't think doing both makes sense as a flat rule change. If
> you will allow people to count towards quorum who are not there, then
> you should leave it at 50%. We are usually very close to 50% on the
> times we have not had quorum.
>
> Second, while the reasons that Mike suggests people count towards
> quorum are all about party building, i think that just doing
> something for the party misses the point of what quorum is about,
> ensuring a large enough body of concerns are heard to make the best
> possible decision.
>
> Third, i have a problem with a majority vote being both against the
> bylaws of how we make decisions and the slippery slope of using
> majority rule in our party.
>
> Let look at some numbers. Currently we have 31 reps on state com. So
> our current rule makes us need 16 people, alternates count where not
> violating female/male balance from a region, at a statecom meeting.
> 40% rounded up would be 13.
>
> So to answer both Mike's and my concerns, i have another way to look
> at quorum. Currently we have one fixed quorum for the whole meeting.
> What i want to throw out in this vetting process is the possibility
> of having different levels of quorum for different aspects of the
> meeting. This may sound complicated but i think you will see that it
> is doable.
>
> An idea i might consider is dropping the quorum to 40% for all
> decisions except for unvetted proposals. A proposal that has been
> vetted at least has had more than one person thinking and looking at
> the proposal.
>
> Another idea is to have the vetting of proposals at statecom in small
> groups before they are heard by the whole. Minimum of 3, 4 or 5
> people would take a proposal and work on it.
>
> Another idea is to allow reps (and alternates?) to count towards
> quorum on a proposal IF they have read the proposal and have
> explicitly commented back to the sponsors that they have read it
> along with concerns and suggestions to change it, if any, and that
> becomes part of the proposal so people can see what others have said.
> While they may not be there to make the actual decision, at least i
> have heard from them, which is important since they may bring up
> something i did not think of, and if it is important enough i could
> make sure the concern is addressed.
>
> Again, i want to have the most input on proposals as possible so we
> have the best decision that takes in as much participation as
> possible. So in summation, i can not recommend Mike's proposal as is.
> But i think discussing other ways to address Mike's concerns is not
> unreasonable.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts?
>
> Peace,
> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Procedures mailing list
> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>



-- 
Owen R. Broadhurst
Candidate for State Representative
Third Hampden District
http://www.owenbroadhurst.org