[Procedures] further consideration re appointing reps

[Merelice]

Greetings,

It would be easier for me to keep track of what this committee has
been asked to do if I addressed one item per email. This email relates
to the June 29 consensus to seat new statecom reps as of July 15.

In a Monday email and at the Monday AdCom meeting, our Parliamentarian
(Dan) stated that designating an effective date was not appropriate
and therefore the appointment of new reps was effective immediately.

Members of StateCom, who had participated in the consensus, then
pointed out to Dan  that this interpretation also was not appropriate
since that was not the wording of the consensus that had taken place.
Further (as Dan has reported), Eli and others also noted there was no
such restriction in the bylaws.

AdCom therefore concluded that two possibilities remained: The July 15
date could be acceptable, or the appointment of the reps in question
could not take place until the next StateCom meeting. AdCom strongly
preferred the former, especially in light of the sensitivities
involved. It was referred to Dan and me to work out in conjunction
with this committee.

Meanwhile, Dan, would you send out an update to your Monday email
(today, if possible), clarifying that the new reps-to-be are not, in
fact, immediately seated? If that clarification were to come from
someone other than you, it would naturally be interpreted as simply
continuing the opposition which is not the case. Thank you.

So this committee's first (and, I hope, fairly quick) recommendation
is what to do specifically about the appointment of the people in
question. Can they be seated as StateCom consensed on July 15? Or do
our bylaws make a strong case against doing so?

Regarding comments to date (and I may not have caught up with all,
since I haven't checked all my emails yet):

(1)  It seems a bit of a stretch to compare the duties of StateCom
reps (that they are all the same, regardless of which way they joined
the StateCom) with the timing or effective date of their terms. In
fact, if I recall correctly, the election of Dan and me wasn't
effective immediately (though I could be wrong about that).

(2) I guess I also don't have a vivid enough imagination to come up
with such a worse-case scenario as to see this July 15 effective date
as a precedent for delaying appointments for, say, six months and, in
the meantime, letting other reps dip in and out of meetings. I frankly
don't know anyone in the GRP who would try to do this (and hope I
never will meet such a person!).

Keep in mind that it was difficult for the StateCom members who
remained at the meeting to determine whether those who left would
continue to be interested in being appointed. And given the crunch
over the next week to 10 days related to the convention, July 15
seemed pretty rational. I might mention that the effective date also
was a compromise with some StateCom members who felt the election
should not take place at all, since the candidates had left. Setting
July 15 made consensus possible.

So that's my take on the full story, at least starting late Sunday
afternoon til now.

Merelice

PS: In answer to my own question, am I correct that the active members
of this committee are Dan, Jim, Wanda, and me?