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

[Daniel Melnechuk]

Hi Merelice,

To determine quorum for a virtual meeting is similar to a physical  
meeting. In a physical meeting you look around the room to count if  
we actually have quorum when we come to asking the question, "are  
there any remaining concerns?" In physical meetings reps can come and  
go for parts of the meeting but as long as we have a quorum when we  
get to making the decision, then the decision is valid.

So in a virtual meeting, the proposal is put out to make a decision  
and in that proposal is a response section which essentially asks  
"are there any remaining concerns?" People can answer with one of 3  
responses:

	a) No concerns (equivalent to being quiet at a physical meeting)
	b) Yes Concerns but stand aside (shortcut about willing to stand  
aside), list concerns for record
	c) Yes Concerns, list concerns

Once we get a quorum number of responses in email or by phone talking  
to a rep, then if all are No Concern or Yes Concerns but stand aside  
responses, the proposal is passed. If there are concerns where people  
are not willing to stand aside, then the facilitator will need to try  
to get those concerns addressed according to our decisionmaking  
procedure. And if the proposal is changed, that would result in  
another consensus ballot being sent out to respond to the modified  
proposal.

Hope that clarifies it.

Peace,
Dan


On Jun 20, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Merelice wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>