[Procedures] Input today re Fwd: further consideration re appointing reps

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

You asked this committee - I have been active at times on this committee- you 
are correct I don't know what was said at adcom - 

The matter is for statecom's decision, however, not adcom - since statecom is 
a higher body than adcom - adcom cannot rule on statecom's decisions-

We are all equal as statecom members and therefore, you are right as far as I 
can tell, it may be appropriate for it to be discussed here.   It would not 
be appropriate for it to be discussed or decided by adcom.   And it is statecom 
that will have to decide, I guess, if we are no longer following what one of 
the few remaining parlimentarians in our party ruled...   That is our standing 
process at this point until I suppose some other procedure is created...

Not sure what process there is now....
In a message dated 7/18/08 9:41:00 PM, merelice at gmail.com writes:


> Grace,
> 
> I appreciate hearing your thoughts, but we are simply trying to
> respond to what was decided at the last Adcom meeting -- which you did
> not attend to my recollection. It was AdCom (in Dan's presence) that
> referred the subject to Dan and me to be worked out in the procedures
> committee.
> 
> As I said to Jamie, I would like nothing better than to just move
> along, but I don't understand how people think they can ignore the
> actual wording of StateCom's consensus and the subsequent referral by
> AdCom -- regardless of how convenient it would be for someone just to
> say, "Do it my way."
> 
> Even a Parliamentarian cannot retroactively change the wording of a
> consensus that was achieved by addressing people's concerns and making
> amendments accordingly. So either what StateCom voted is OK or it
> isn't. I'm glad you think that it was OK -- or at least enough to go
> with it.
> 
> While Dan (and others) have functioned as parliamentarian, no one
> officially fills that position or can be considered to be the sole
> interpreter of the party's bylaws. Several people are weighing in on a
> number of bylaws items with varying interpretations -- any of which
> could be considered valid. What you say makes some sense. And what Eli
> and others have said in direct contradiction also makes some sense.
> 
> Meanwhile, although both you and Jamie have chimed in, neither of you
> are active members of this committee, and I await the input of those
> who are. Or, failing that, Dan could notify AdCom that he withdraws
> his challenge.
> 
> Merelice
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/18/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> > Hi, folks - taking a quick breath before returning to the party priority 
> of
> >  the foreclosure crisis.
> >
> >  First, the Procedures committee is not a parliamentary body - we have no
> >  authority to rule on parliamentary questions - we respond to a sense that 
> we need
> >  new policies or to revise old ones and make proposals.
> >
> >  Dan Melnechuk, on the other hand, is a recognized Parliamentarian in our
> >  party - he ruled that the bylaws do not provide for a delay and so 
> thosenominated
> >  should have been seated as of June 29th.   We also have never created any
> >  policy to allow for a delay.
> >
> >  I would agree - not only that we have no procedures for a delay but that 
> we
> >  have no procedures to attach any conditions on people being seated.   Our
> >  bylaws and precedent have allowed only for an objection to be raised 
> regarding a
> >  particular nominee, not the procedures by which they were seated.
> >
> >  That doesn't mean that we couldn't create such procedures for the future 
> -
> >  but to start applying conditions where no procedures for conditions 
> exist,
> >  creates an unequal handling of people who were nominated under the same 
> procedures.
> >
> >  To avoid that uneven handling, procedures would need to be created for 
> the
> >  next set of nominees and these would be seated without any such 
> procedures
> >  (delay, extra criteria, etc.).
> >
> >  either way, the possible dates for seating regardless of interpretation 
> of
> >  time line are passed.
> >
> >  Seating at this point would have no reason to be in question.
> >
> >  yours, Grace
> >
> > In a message dated 7/18/08 12:32:07 PM, merelice at gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >  > Greetings,
> >  >
> >  > This is the email I said yesterday that I would forward. Adcom is
> >  > scheduled to meet tomorrow, and it would be helpful if we could
> >  > provide a recommendation.
> >  >
> >  > While I mentioned in the email below that there was concern about
> >  > whether the candidates still wanted to be appointed to StateCom (given
> >  > that they had left the meeting and their dissatisfaction might lead
> >  > them to think differently), I failed to point out that StateCom's
> >  > consensus _included_ getting confirmation of their continuing
> >  > interest, as well as making the effective date be July 15. In fact, at
> >  > a subsequent Rainbow meeting, Lisa did say she was thinking it over.
> >  >
> >  > I realize there are members of this committee who believe the June 29
> >  > consensus to seat new StateCom reps should have made the appointment
> >  > immediately effective. But that is not what happened, nor is it what
> >  > this committee is being called on to determine. This committee is
> >  > being asked whether the June 29 consensus can be accepted under
> >  > current party bylaws.
> >  >
> >  > Please re-read the email below.  Then the following remarks are my
> >  > input to making a recommendation.
> >  >
> >  > Given that the bylaws do not, in fact, stipulate an effective date for
> >  > appointment, nor do they specifically ban the possibility of setting
> >  > an effective date, I hope this committee will recommend that the
> >  > StateCom consensus be accepted. The date is now past, and it seems it
> >  > would be appropriate just to get the confirmation of interest that the
> >  > consensus vote also sought.
> >  >
> >  > If some of you would like to consider changing the bylaws, that could
> >  > be made part of the recommendation to AdCom (and eventually StateCom).
> >  > I wonder whether that is necessary since I don't believe this
> >  > situation will set a precedent that will be abused.
> >  >
> >  > As a procedural matter, I would also recommend that StateCom determine
> >  > whether the new reps come from counties where there are unfilled
> >  > seats, in which case it would be appropriate to have them fill those
> >  > seats. After all, the idea is to seek diversity in the first two ways
> >  > of becoming a StateCom rep and then supplement as needed with
> >  > diversity reps.
> >  >
> >  > Merelice
> >  > Procedures Committee member
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >  > From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
> >  > Date: Jul 3, 2008 2:22 AM
> >  > Subject: further consideration re appointing reps
> >  > To: Procedures and Structures Committee <procedures at green-rainbow.org>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 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.
> >  >
> >  > [Dan, I don't think I ever saw an email from you. Did I miss it?]
> >  >
> >  > 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
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >  > Procedures mailing list
> >  > Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> >  > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  **************
> >  Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
> >  FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
> >
> >  (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Procedures mailing list
> >  Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> >  http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Procedures mailing list
> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
> 
> 




**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for 
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)