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

[Jim Hammerman]

Hi Merelice,
I didn't mean to push on a sensitive spot. And I didn't intend to 
pre-judge whether or not including such delays in proposals to seat 
StateCom members is out of order. That's clearly what the Procedures 
committee needs to decide and I will express my opinion about that there. 

All I was saying was that there may be severability issues in what was 
passed--that if one part of a proposal is acceptable according to our 
bylaws, while other parts go against our bylaws, then the parts that are 
acceptable can still be accepted and we'll need to decide what to do about 
the parts that are not acceptable. And we can use the intent of the 
proposal as a guide to determine how to rectify the situation in case we 
happen to decide that such delays were not allowable instead of throwing 
out the whole proposal because one part of it is deemed unacceptable. 
Especially if by throwing out the whole proposal we would exacerbate the 
very issue that is unacceptable, i.e., the delays. Such delays may be 
allowable or they may not--that's for Procedures to discuss and decide. 
But I don't think determining whether or not they're allowable in general 
needs to hold up seating these delegates, since if the delays were deemed 
unallowable, then our default procedure would be to seat them immediately 
(on June 29), which time has already passed. Or, we might say that 
StateCom had decided _in this case_ to institute a delay, and therefore 
seating these delegates on July 15 (which time has also already passed) 
would be allowable, but that this couldn't become a precedent for future 
delays in seating delegates. 

If there's a case to be made that you think that StateCom was not only 
choosing to delay seating these delegates but also to make a policy that 
such delays were acceptable practice in general, and therefore deciding 
against such delays was really undermining the _entire_ proposal, and 
therefore the delegates shouldn't be seated at all until StateCom revisits 
the issue, I'd like to hear you or others make such a case. But maybe that 
can wait till the Procedures Committee meets, too.

Best, Jim




Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> 
Sent by: procedures-bounces at green-rainbow.org
07/17/08 06:42 PM
Please respond to
Procedures and Structures Committee <procedures at green-rainbow.org>


To
"Procedures and Structures Committee" <procedures at green-rainbow.org>
cc
State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
Subject
Re: [Procedures] [statecom] Have added new state committee members      to 
statecom and statecom-discuss lists






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