[Lnc-business] seeking cosponsors for EPCC and Contract Review motion

[Vicki Kirkland]

I will cosponsor.

Vicki Kirkland
Region 2 Rep LNC
407 841-LP12 (5712)

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Many of you may recall that in the last LNC meeting, I made a motion to
> modify the EPCC's role in director-level contract review.  It received a
> majority vote, but due to several abstentions, the vote wasn't sufficient
> to adopt it without having given previous notice.
>
> Based on good feedback during and after the meeting, I've made some
> additional changes to the proposal, and at this time I'm asking for
> co-sponsors for the attached motion.
>
> Our current policy has a number of defects:
>
>    - It requires that a proposed director-level employment contract must
>    be reviewed by the EPCC, but it doesn't say that any EPCC objections or
>    concerns have to be fixed.  In theory a chair could say, "They reviewed it
>    and didn't like it, but I don't have to listen to them, so I signed it."
>    - Our policy requires that the contract be circulated to the LNC, but
>    it doesn't specify that this ought to happen before the contract is signed
>    so that any problems identified by the LNC can be addressed before
>    execution.
>    - Our policy requires that the general counsel review it, but it
>    doesn't require that the general counsel's advice be shared with those
>    conducting the review.  It could be that only the chair knows what the
>    general counsel's advice was.
>    - Compensation is a non-trivial percentage of our expenses.  The
>    director-level contracts have substantial financial impacts well beyond
>    that person's base pay rate, and we just need more eyes reviewing those
>    offerings.  Contracts can offer additional benefits beyond the standard
>    benefits in the employee manual.  I pointed out recently that the wording
>    of bonus structures in recent years has been changed such that having a
>    good quarter at the beginning of a year can create a bonus multiplier
>    effect -- one good quarter can create bonuses in other quarters even if the
>    other quarters were terrible.  The prior wording did not contain that
>    flaw.  More eyes reviewing the contract will reduce the chances of missing
>    that kind of detail.
>
> My proposal would:
>
>    - make it clear that the LNC must see the contract before it is signed.
>    - require that General Counsel advice be shared with the EPCC and LNC.
>    - require that a review body approve the contract, not just have a
>    chance to review it with no power to require changes.  That review body can
>    either be the EPCC (we did create them to play this sort of role), or if
>    the EPCC members were cantankerous and played the role of
>    3-person-roadblock to hiring person X rather than finding functional
>    contract language, a Chair could go around the EPCC and have the entire LNC
>    approve it instead.
>    - change how the EPCC is appointed.  It is currently appointed by the
>    LNC Chair, but since the EPCC would have a role of approving the chair's
>    proposal, that committee should be selected by the LNC rather than be
>    appointees of the Chair.
>    - disallow the LNC Chair from serving on the EPCC, where he would be
>    one of three votes approving his own proposal.
>
> An additional feature is that because the LNC must see the contract 10
> days before it is signed, if the EPCC were to initially approve a contract
> but the LNC had a serious objection to it, there would still be time for
> the LNC to use an email ballot to override the decision of the EPCC.
>
> There is a term in this proposal that I want to point out.  If the LNC
> approves the contract, it requires "an affirmative vote from a majority of
> the fixed membership of the LNC."  If there are no LNC vacancies, and
> everyone votes, then this is the same requirement as a majority vote.  The
> "fixed membership" clause says that the denominator for calculating a
> majority isn't just the number of ballots cast.  The denominator is the
> total number of LNC seats including any vacant ones, regardless of how many
> might have abstained from the vote.
>
> Co-sponsors?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151019/967628ef/attachment-0005.html>