[statecom] Important question Re: credentialing new StateCom reps

[Merelice]

Hi Jamie,

I follow some of your reasoning, but not all.

In particular, I think you are missing the core of my concern -- that
is, the nature of credentialing for a virtual meeting IS different
than that of an in-person meeting, simply because all statecom reps
are automatically "attending" the meeting, so we don't wait for
"quorum" before the meeting is "in session" the way we do at an
in-person meeting.

Your paragraph about "quorum" being required is mixing up quorum with
the needed two-thirds vote to pass something. In fact, unlike an
in-person meeting where a two-thirds vote could be a lower number,
two-thirds at the virtual meeting is two-thirds of the whole body,
precisely because the whole body can and is expected to participate in
a virtual meeting! If two-thirds were the "quorum," the vote required
would be two-thirds of two-thirds.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that past meetings were
conducted correctly and that this meeting is incorrectly adding an
item to the agenda -- the election of new statecom reps. It is
particularly questionable whether voting online is an appropriate way
to elect statecom reps without benefit of having the potential rep at
least make the effort to attend an in-person meeting.

You speak of Larry's harsh words; I wish you could see that yours also
come across as harsh. To say that this concern about process means we
would stand in the way of adding to StateCom's diversity is going
overboard in my view. Of course, we want to add to StateCom's
diversity. And we are less than two weeks away from an in-person
meeting which new reps could attend and even have the opportunity to
prepare ahead.

In short, my process question has not been adequately addressed,
regardless of the makeup of any new StateCom reps. The vote to hold
the meeting was proper. The call to the meeting was proper. The
announced convening of the meeting was proper. I believe it would now
be proper to conduct the business of the meeting.

Merelice


On 6/19/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
> Hi Merelice,
>
>
>  > I have received a couple of questions regarding the election of new
>  > StateCom members BEFORE the virtual StateCom meeting now in session
>  > takes care of the business of the meeting.
>
>
> Happy to try to resolve them.
>
>
>  > AdCom discussed this at its Monday night teleconference. We were told
>  > that at in-person meetings, part of the credentialing process was
>  > electing and credentialing _new_ StateCom members and, therefore, it
>  > would be part of the process of a virtual meeting.
>
>
> That is true as a special state committee meeting is still a state
>  committee meeting and is bound by the Standing Rules as defined:
>
>  http://green-rainbow.org/StateCom/standing_rules.html
>
>
>  > However, in the past, virtual meetings did not include a credentialing
>  > process because it was assumed that ALL StateCom members receiving the
>  > notice of the meeting were "credentialed" to participate in the
>  > meeting.
>
>
> That we did it in the past in the manner you suggested does not mean
>  that we did it correctly those times.  Also, as Dan pointed out at our
>  Adcom meeting, other times credentialing was not necessary as there
>  were no new party members who wanted to join the State Committee.
>
>
>  > Waiting for quorum was not an issue since the meeting takes
>  > place over a period of time. We simply needed to hear from at least
>  > two-thirds of StateCom to complete the business of the virtual
>  > meeting.
>
>
> Quorum is always an issue for state committee.  Due to the virtual
>  nature of special state committee meetings, we require consensus of
>  two-thirds of the entire state committee to ensure that whatever
>  decision was made would reflect the entire state committee.  In such a
>  case, quorum is two-thirds of the state committee.
>
>
>  > There has not been an effort to add StateCom reps AFTER the notice of
>  > a virtual meeting went out. I can understand (and share) concerns
>  > about being asked to vote for new statecom reps without the benefit of
>  > in-person discourse and, as important, without the potential new reps
>  > having participated in the business to be addressed at a virtual
>  > meeting that doesn't allow for the same kind of deliberation as an
>  > in-person meeting.
>
>
> While it is true that people would get some minimal interaction at the
>  start of a state committee meeting with potential members, the
>  interaction does not appear much larger than what is offered.  Some
>  people who others have nominated are known by most, others are not.
>  Certainly, we could ask for brief statements by people who are seeking
>  to be elected to the state committee, if that would settle any
>  concerns.
>
>
>  > I suggest that by virtue of sending out the StateCom meeting notice
>  > and having already begun the session, the credentialing has already
>  > taken place. Therefore, we should proceed with the business for which
>  > the meeting was called.
>
>
> I appreciate the suggestion, but as facilitator, I believe we have to
>  keep to the standing rules of the state committee.
>
>
>  Jamie
>