[statecom] V-Meeting Continues - questions about Clarifications

[Eli Beckerman]

Dear Jim,

Many thanks for your understanding as we try to keep things moving forward.

Regarding your point #2 on the limitation of the agenda – one clarification:
The State Committee meeting of 4/12 agreed to the virtual meeting by
consensus, with even a narrower agenda – the approval of uncommitted
delegates. The minutes read: "Only item on agenda will be approving
uncommitted delegates. Passes by consensus." In the 5/26 AdCom meeting,
AdCom realized that approval of all types of delegates to the nominating
convention needed to take place in the virtual meeting.

As the original note taker of the sentence in question, I might have
inadvertently limited what the decision really was, based on the agenda item
being about "uncommitted delegates." But the approval of delegates was
clearly the only agenda item desired for this meeting, and the 6/29 State
Committee meeting reaffirmed that. The minutes have yet to be amended and
approved by the State Committee, which is one possible way to handle this.

I hope this helps.

To your point #3 (and Grace's concern/request) the State Committee did not
reach into the virtual meeting in approving the delegate slate. It took it
up as an urgent matter of business at one of its quarterly meetings, and
approved the delegates that have been put forward (as a friendly amendment).
In the same proposal, it decided that the virtual meeting could be held open
so as to allow for last-minute delegate additions -- which was in line with
an AdCom recommendation of procedure. I think about all of the concerns
about proposal #3 have been addressed -- both in the virtual meeting and in
the in-person meeting. Concerns expressed during the virtual meeting
informed the decision-making at the in-person meeting. The 6/29 decisions in
fact round out the consensus (only 3 people had concerns in the virtual
meeting). I apologize if there were remaining concerns not adequately
addressed. The diversity goals were a part of the consideration, and in the
best judgment of the State Committee, the decision made was to use the
remaining slots to improve diversity, and ask full delegates to volunteer to
become alternates to improve diversity where possible. The concerns were
dealt with in valid proposals passed at the 6/29, and as friendly amendments
to some of those proposals.

To your point #4, your confusion is quite merited. I just clarified with Dan
that he is in the process of updating the bylaws based on a 2006 bylaws
change relevant to this topic (which still has not been incorporated into
our bylaws documentation) -- that alternates are automatically recognized as
long as there is an open spot and it doesn't tip the gender balance.
Alternates can chime in as they wish, and for any given vote (which is in
essence a check-in to see who is seated), alternates' votes will count as
long as there's a slot for them at that moment.

Quorum is based on the number of full delegates (alternates who vote are
essentially a full delegate at that moment in time, assuming there's a slot
open)

And the decision to accept the 6 new members to State Com was conditional.
The Procedures Committee has taken on to determine whether the
time-condition is consistent with our bylaws, as the bylaws do not specify
immediacy. So until Procedures finds that there is an inconsistency with the
bylaws, the 6/29 meeting consensus stands.

Thanks,
Eli



On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu>
wrote:

> Dear Wanda,
> A few questions and concerns about your clarification.
>
> 1) While I don't think it's procedurally correct (and you acknowledge it
> was "irregular" and "a slip-up") to use one meeting to replace the
> facilitators of another meeting, if Jamie has decided to step down from
> facilitation of the virtual meeting, and you and Eli have decided to step
> up, I welcome you to the task. Thanks!
>
> 2) For the same reasons, though, I think the limitation of the agenda in
> this virtual meeting is out of order. I don't think that one meeting/
> seating of StateCom can limit the agenda of another meeting/ seating of
> StateCom, especially if the virtual meeting had already rejected the
> proposal to limit its agenda. Therefore, I don't think the limitation of
> the agenda for the virtual meeting is correct or can stand.
>
> 3) I think the amendment to the June 29 StateCom Proposal #I, declared
> what had been the slate of the virtual meeting's Proposal #3 also passed,
> is out of order, since Proposal #3 was concurrently being considered in
> the virtual meeting. Again, one meeting/ seating of StateCom cannot reach
> into what is going on within another meeting/ seating and do its business,
> especially since the slate itself had not been proposed as an order of
> business for the face-to-face meeting, and hadn't been raised as a
> potential urgent item in the morning. There are still standing concerns
> about that slate within this meeting that need to be addressed.
>
> 4) I'm confused about what is going to count as quorum for the virtual
> meeting and how we're going to count votes if alternates are included as
> you describe. Did we seat alternates to take the place of full delegates
> at the beginning of the virtual meeting so we know which of them gets to
> vote here? Are we trying to figure that out for each consensus call/ vote,
> so that, for example, if an alternate and a full delegate both weigh in,
> we'll have to disregard the vote of the alternate, but if not, then the
> alternate's vote counts? And is quorum based on the number of full
> delegates, or the number of full delegates and alternates? Finally, since
> Dan has said that the seating of the 6 new StateCom members voted in as
> part of the June 29 face-to-face meeting cannot be delayed till July 15
> but must occur immediately, we need to be sure to appropriately include
> them in this meeting. Or, since one meeting/ seating of StateCom cannot
> interfere with another, do we need to again go back to credentialing
> issues in _this_ meeting to confirm that they can now participate here?
>
> Yours,
> Jim
>
>
>
> Wanda Boeke <wjboeke at gmail.com>
> Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> 07/02/08 10:27 AM
> Please respond to
> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
>
>
> To
> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [statecom] V-Meeting Continues - Clarifications + To Dos
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A NOTE ON FACILITATION
> As per a phone call to me at 6:40 Tuesday evening, Jamie O¹Keefe let me
> know
> that he was stepping down as co-facilitator of the virtual meeting. He
> will
> be communicating with the State Committee about this.
>
> Following nomination at Sunday's (6/29) State Committee meeting, and later
> in consultation with the AdCom and Jamie O'Keefe, Eli Beckerman and I are
> stepping forward to facilitate the virtual meeting in order to continue
> the
> process of approving delegates to the national convention and to follow
> through on the Delegate Selection Plan.
>
> Again, many thanks to Jamie for the time and effort he put in on
> facilitating thus far.
>
> BACKGROUND
> There was consensus on Proposal A to have me co-facilitate. Jamie O¹Keefe
> did not report this, but I spoke with some of those who had concerns (in
> addition to concerns being addressed online) and concerns were cleared up.
> So, you have honored me with your confidence in my ability to have us
> address our tasks as delineated in the Delegate Selection Plan. At the
> June
> 29th meeting, the State Committee confirmed the consensus it built.
>
> The State Committee passed a ³proposal² on June 29th meeting in support of
> Eli Beckerman as well as myself as co-facilitators. The State Committee as
> its normal course of business (last item in the Standing Rules agenda) is
> to
> decide who will co-facilitate meetings, usually an upcoming meeting. It is
> the only body that does so (unless a nominated facilitator finds a
> replacement if unable to attend).
>
> The proposal format was irregularly used during Sunday¹s meeting.
> Nevertheless, the intent of the State Committee is clear, and, as
> mentioned,
> it is the only body that can decide on facilitators. I would urge members
> not to jump on this slip-up in process to undermine the State Committee¹s
> intent.
>
> For what it is worth, I believe, it was the first time the facilitators of
> the meeting had facilitated one. In the past, veteran facilitators,
> familiar
> with GRP rules and process, were often teamed up with less experienced
> facilitators, but recently this ³tradition² has dropped by the wayside.
>
> There was unity on AdCom during the Monday evening AdCom teleconference
> regarding Jamie O¹Keefe and Eli Beckerman¹s discussing who would be the
> male
> facilitator for the virtual meeting. With Jamie¹s stepping down, I believe
> all concerns regarding the current facilitation have been satisfactorily
> addressed.
>
> I am pleased to work together with Eli as a co-facilitator. We have three
> days in which to get our job done and two heads are definitely better than
> one.
>
> ALTERNATES STATE COMMITTEE REPS WELCOME
> Although not reported to the virtual meeting (until now) parliamentarian
> Dan
> Melnechuk clarified during the Monday evening AdCom teleconference that
> alternate representatives to the State Committee are welcome to step into
> State Committee meetings at any point during a meeting if there is not
> full
> representation from their region. They must be substituting for a full
> representative and have approval of the rep and/or local. For the virtual
> meeting, they should listed as an alternate (credentialing sheet published
> May 5 on lists) since calling town clerks or receiving membership dues to
> establish GRP membership is not viable in an online meeting. Alternates
> can
> then fully participate in forming consensus, decision-making, and voting
> during a particular meeting.
>
> PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
> I reiterate the purpose of this virtual meeting as per the Secretary¹s
> abbreviated minutes: ³State Committee reaffirms that the sole [underlined]
> purpose of the current online meeting is to approve and select additional
> delegates to the convention and that the format of that meeting be changed
> to one that enables that single purpose.²
>
> Since the delegation is still not complete, we are keeping this meeting
> open
> for the sole purpose of adding delegates (7) and alternates (17) in hopes
> of
> reaching a total of 32 delegates and 32 alternates. We encourage the
> remaining slots being used to strengthen the diversity of the MA
> delegation.
> We may further ask full delegates to switch to being alternates in
> instances
> where that may strengthen the delegation's diversity. We are also
> undertaking steps to ensure that delegation members may be approved as
> they
> step forward.
>
> TO DOs
> 1) As per the AdCom telecon Monday evening, various tasks have been taken
> on
> by various individuals in order to fulfill the GPUS delegation
> requirements.
> Elie Yarden has been charged by both CDLC (previously), and again by
> AdCom,
> with recording delegate information, eliciting candidate preference, and
> implementing the allocation and diversity equations. Jamie and Dan will
> still be credentialing, and will credential delegates before they are
> presented to us. Our job is to approve the delegates Elie sends to us.
>
> 2) We should also, ourselves, field delegates. So, please contact people
> in
> your local or in your area to see if there are interested volunteers.
> Also,
> please keep in mind that we want our delegation to reflect the richness in
> makeup that is Massachusetts.
>
> Again, we have basically 3 days in which to supply the approval of
> delegates
> (GPUS extension deadline). We have the prerogative to keep the meeting
> open
> as long as seems reasonable (up through the first day of the convention,
> even). This is up to all of us to decide.
>
> Longwindedly,
>
> Wanda Boeke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>