[statecom] [Procedures] Have added new state committee members to statecom and statecom-discuss lists

[Merelice]

Please, Jim, don't make a sensitive situation even more delicate.

The StateCom came to consensus on an AMENDED proposal. If that
proposal is deemed to be unacceptable as passed, then it is NOT
passed. The wording cannot be changed retroactively by a few people
who were not there and who might disagree with it, since the wording
is what made passage possible.

I would sincerely hope that potential new StateCom members would want
to respect the official process of the body they are about to join.
Otherwise, what assurance do they have that their deliberations won't
get changed willy-nilly by whoever feels they have the authority to do
so?

For the moment, this item is in the hands of the Procedures Committee
to make a recommendation to the AdCom. If there is a determination
that the proposal AS PASSED is somehow against party bylaws, it will
need to move back to StateCom for further action.

Merelice



On 7/17/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Thank you, Merelice, for your warm welcome to these new StateCom members.
>  I'm delighted to have them on board so that they can join us in conducting
>  our business and helping to create a vibrant GRP. I look forward to that
>  wholeheartedly.
>
>  As a member of the Procedures and Structures Committee, I think the
>  portion of that vote that would be considered out of order are the
>  conditions that were set for their seating, in particular the delay until
>  July 15, which is different from our typical procedure of immediately
>  seating new StateCom delegates. It was clearly StateCom's intent to seat
>  these delegates, and so any further delay would be going against that
>  intent; and such further delay might constitute a further violation of our
>  bylaws. If the Procedures Committee decides to rule on the validity of
>  including such a delay in a vote to seat StateCom members, I do not
>  believe it would invalidate seating them, but only would invalidate the
>  delay and/ or other conditions for their seating. Therefore, I do not
>  believe there is reason to question whether these folks are now members of
>  StateCom.
>
>  Still, the Procedures and Structures Committee _should_ probably meet to
>  discuss this and other issues. But I'm not sure how the Procedures
>  Committee works, since we haven't yet met in the 3 months that I've been
>  on StateCom and on the Committee. Can someone who has been part of this
>  committee for longer please help me?
>
>  Welcome again, and at long last, to our new StateCom members!
>
>  All the best,
>  Jim
>
>
>
>
>  Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
>
>  07/17/08 01:53 PM
>
>  To
>  "State Committee Official Business" <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
>
> cc
>
> Procedures and Structures Committee <procedures at green-rainbow.org>
>
> Subject
>  Re: [statecom] Have added new state committee members to statecom and
> statecom-discuss lists
>
>  Greetings and Welcome (I hope),
>
>  Actually, before the new appointments can become official, the
>  individuals are asked to confirm their continuing interest in being
>  appointed. There was some doubt that this might be the case, given the
>  tensions and sensitivities at the June 29 StateCom meeting. So the
>  appointment was conditioned on getting that confirmation. (It would be
>  helpful if you would simultaneously identify which working committee
>  you are most interested in joining -- a requirement of State Committee
>  members.)
>
>  Also, the validity of StateCom's vote has been questioned as possibly
>  being in conflict with the Party's bylaws since it gave an effective
>  date of July 15. So AdCom referrred the matter to the Procedures
>  Committee for its recommendation. Jamie participated in that AdCom
>  meeting and has apparently forgotten about the discussion. I should
>  hasten to add that it is AdCom's strong preference that the StateCom
>  vote be considered valid. Otherwise, the appointment could not take
>  place until the next StateCom meeting. The only way StateCom could
>  reach consensus was by adding the two amendments mentioned above
>  (confirmation of interest and effective date).
>
>  The Procedures Committee has yet to determine its recommendation,
>  though it would be helpful if it did so soon, at least by this
>  Saturday's AdCom meeting, especially since the July 15 effective date
>  is now past.
>
>  Merelice
>