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

[Yarden]

Dan,

I am working to make this work in such a way as to get the strongest  
delegation possible to Chicago.  I say this in part, because of the  
continuous talking past one another that plague attempts to achieve  
consensus, the use of open discussion to both express personal  
feelings and to conceal them at the same time.  I am not sure that  
their is any way to achieve consensus about how to solve a problem, to  
how to find a good way to resolve resolve a dispute except through  
rational (or normative) discourse.  Not that there is anything wrong  
about expressive rhetoric.  The need for clarity remains.  And I will  
try to listen more carefully to the totality of what is being said,  
and not just a part of it.

I am somewhat concerned about the our timing because of the needs for  
planning on the part of the people making decisions about traveling as  
it keeps getting more difficult financially.
Peace,
Elie Yarden



On Jun 20, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Daniel Melnechuk wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom