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

Sun Nov 5 14:28:37 EST 2006

Owen,

I just found out that Amherst has a 50% quorum on Town Meeting. This  
makes me feel that we shouldn't lower it. Oh well.

Dan

On Nov 1, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Owen Broadhurst wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Procedures mailing list
> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>