[statecom] [adcom] Is: quorum; Was Re: Important question Re: credentialing new StateCom reps

[Merelice]

Hi Dan,

I think I now understand that there is a difference between a
three-week online vote and a virtual (online) meeting.

So the next question (which actually was Elie's first question) is, If
quorum is the same as for an in-person meeting, how and when do we
determine that quorum is present? Is this meeting in session (as
stated) or not? And does the final vote require 2/3rds of the quorum
or 2/3rds of the entire body?

In the process of trying to fully understand the process, I would urge
everyone to keep their focus on what the PURPOSE of the meeting is.
Process should serve purpose. Process is simply a means to an end, not
an end in itself.

Merelice


On 6/20/08, Daniel Melnechuk <isis at isisdesign.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
>  People are getting a bit confused about quorum and thresholds. Quorum
>  for a virtual statecom meeting is the same as any other statecom
>  meeting, 50% seated reps plus 1 rounded down, not the 2/3rds being
>  discussed.
>
>  So when the responses from a proposal are looked at by the
>  facilitator (Jamie) and any others who want to tally at the same
>  time, if a quorum of responses are returned with no concerns then the
>  item passes, this is with giving a reasonable amount of time to pass
>  to allow people to respond seeing as we are not in the same room but
>  spread over the state and using email. If we don't get a quorum
>  responses, then people must call statecom reps and have them chime
>  in. If there are concerns, then as in a meeting the facilitator tries
>  to get them addressed.
>
>  In the case of a self-imposed obligation by statecom (by virtue of
>  the delegate selection plan that statecom approved by statecom) on
>  statecom to approve delegates to national presidential convention,
>  there are no explicit sponsors to aid in accepting amendments. This
>  is actually closer to true consensus process where any proposal is
>  actually the proposal from and for the whole group. We have a sponsor
>  system that allows the sponsors more power than the rest of the
>  individuals in the body to control how a proposal is amended, which
>  if we are looking at changing our process is one place i have always
>  thought could use reviewing. That said, we do not have explicit
>  procedures to say who are the surrogate sponsors in such a case but i
>  would suggest that we leave it up to the facilitator to propose
>  amendments to try to reach consensus based on the concerns expressed
>  and input  from anyone trying to help attatin the best decision that
>  addresses all concerns, as that is what consensus is about.
>
>  There may be some confusion with this versus the 3-week decision
>  making process that we have a procedure for that has different
>  thresholds for participation seeing as it is not a meeting and is
>  slower and is there to deal with usually non-controversial issues
>  between meetings.
>
>  I hope this helps clarify things.
>
>  Peace,
>  Dan
>