[statecom] preliminary report on adcom meeting

[maryj hyatt]

Please remove me from the email list!!!

> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:00:51 -0400> From: elibeck at gmail.com> To: statecom at green-rainbow.org> Subject: Re: [statecom] preliminary report on adcom meeting> > Jim, the latter part of that paragraph applies to AdCom REJECTING> the CDLC results. AdCom did not reject them, we failed to approve> or reject them.> > I know that trust is low right now, and I can see how quoting only a segment> of the plan might set off alarm bells... but I ask you to read the section> again> and satisfy yourself that the allocation was indeed automatically approved.> > Thanks,> Eli> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu>> wrote:> > > Greetings,> > Thank you for the update. I'm glad that AdCom finally had a chance to> > review the plan, as they're required to do. However, I'm confused about> > the conclusion you draw. You seem to be saying that because the plan> > failed to be approved that it was therefore approved. This paradox sent me> > back to the delegate allocation plan, the relevant section of which (p.9)> > I quote in full below.> >> > "The Administrative Committee must review and approve or reject the> > results within one (1) week> > of receiving them. Failure to approve or reject the results will> > automatically approve them. If> > they reject the results, the CDLC co-chairs, in consultation with other> > CDLC members, will> > review the results, make any changes and submit the revised results within> > one (1) week of the> > rejection. If the Administrative Committee still does not agree with the> > calculations that> > determine the results, then they have one (1) week to revise them or they> > are accepted."> >> > I think the relevant section of this plan is the _last_ sentence, which> > says that if AdCom does not agree with the allocation they need to revise> > them. So, were proposals for revision considered at yesterday's meeting?> > And, if so, what were they and what were the dispositions of those> > proposals?> >> > Thanks,> > Jim> >> >> >> >> >> > Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>> > Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org> > 05/28/08 09:04 AM> > Please respond to> > State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>> >> >> > To> > statecom <statecom at green-rainbow.org>> > cc> > cdlc development <candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>> > Subject> > [statecom] preliminary report on adcom meeting> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Greetings,> >> > It is official. The Administrative Committee was not able to agree on> > the allocation of delegates to the presidential candidates on the GRP> > primary ballot.> >> > After a fully implemented consensus process -- lengthy discussion,> > several efforts to propose something we could consense on, listing of> > concerns, and going to a vote -- the allocation lost. Out of 10> > members present, 8 voted: 5 for the allocation and 3 against, falling> > short of the two-thirds needed.> >> > There is no longer any question about the amount of time adcom had to> > come to some agreement and that adcom conducted an in-person meeting> > that engaged in the consensus process. Therefore, according the the> > delegate-selection plan as follows, the CDLC calculation received> > automatic approval:> >> > "The Administrative Committee must review and approve or reject the> > results within one (1) week of receiving them. Failure to approve or> > reject the results will automatically approve them."> >> > Merelice> > _______________________________________________> > 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