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

[Sam Goldstein]

Alicia,

I will cosponsor your motion.

Sam Goldstein

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Vicki Kirkland <vickilp12 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b1953181/attachment-0002.html>