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

[Daniel Melnechuk]

HI Elie,

I am responding since i am confused by what you say below which seems  
to indicate you believe we are using the 3 week process for decisions:

> Nevertheless, I have
> been respond responding positively to Jamie's request, as facilitator,
> getting help in framing a formal proposal, using the form that you
> offered, feel much more secure in knowing that we have before us a 3
> week process.

We are not using the 3 week online decisionmaking process. We are  
having a virtual statecom meeting, virtual since we are not meeting  
physically but in cyberspace via email and by phone for those who do  
not have email.

Just wanted to make that clear. If you already understood that my  
apologies for being possibly pedantic.

Peace,
Dan


On Jun 20, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Yarden wrote:

> Dan,
> Thank you for assistance in helping us (maybe just me?) understand the
> procedure under which I was supposed to be doing the work assigned me
> by the CDLD.  I volunteered without understanding what I was get into
> but nevertheless operating under the assumptions that you state, and
> informing the State Committee of where matters stood in the matter
> under consideration,  i.e, delegate selection.  Nevertheless, I have
> been respond responding positively to Jamie's request, as facilitator,
> getting help in framing a formal proposal, using the form that you
> offered, feel much more secure in knowing that we have before us a 3
> week process.
>
> Nevertheless I do hope that this is not interpreted to mean that our
> volunteers to become delegates cannot be informed of a decision until
> the week before the Convention.  Or that there can be no fundraising
> to assist in ensuring the diversity of our delegation.  I am quite
> confident that we act in the spirit that you describe, that we will be
> able to do this and now better understand the comment of Dave England
> to the effect that in 2004 we were accepting new delegates until up to
> the beginning of the Convention.
> Elie Yarden
> MRGRA
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Daniel Melnechuk 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
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Merelice wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>