[statecom] [adcom] Important question Re: credentialing new StateCom reps

[Larry Ely]

AdCom and StateCom,

I am in total agreement with Merelice's thoughts and concerns, as she 
expressed them below in response to Jamie O'Keefe, regarding the 
composition of the upcoming virtual StateCom.

Larry



At 05:28 PM 6/19/08, Merelice wrote:

>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
> >
>_______________________________________________
>AdCom mailing list
>AdCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom
>To email Administration Committee members: adcom.members AT green-rainbow 
>DOT org