[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-10: EPCC and Contract Review

[Joshua Katz]

Colleagues:

Please allow me to write briefly in favor of this motion.  While many of
the arguments, on both sides, have been presented in person at the last
meeting, I wish to emphasize the institutional point of view.  The EPCC is
empowered to set employment policies; the LNC is empowered to reject those
policies, but the chair is not empowered to do so unilaterally.  Yet, our
contract process makes it possible for the chair to do so anyway.  Consider
that, in an earlier EPCC report, we recommended that contracts be aligned
with the Employee Manual; for instance, that vacation be given as in the
Manual rather than being set up differently for different employees.  A
reasonable inference from that recommendation is that, in fact, this has
not always been done.  Consequently, you can conclude that, while the EPCC
sets out a vacation policy, the chair can simply write a contract
specifying a different policy for an individual employee - a modification
to EPCC policy that should require LNC approval.  The EPCC can protest, but
to no avail; the LNC, meanwhile, need not even know about the matter until,
well, sometime after review by counsel.  It makes sense, then, to institute
EPCC approval for contracts - any exception or deviation from the policies
set by the EPCC should require approval by the EPCC.  I am speaking here
both historically and forward-looking; it is not targeted at any particular
or current occupant of the chair.

This motion targets both of those issues - it requires EPCC approval, and
it allows the LNC to see the contract prior to execution.  Some will,
though, raise concerns about an abundance of chefs and their impact on a
broth.  This is a reasonable concern; after all, that's why Congress gives
the President and his administration "fast-track" authorization to
negotiate trade deals and treaties, with the Congress then approving (or
not) the deal after it is negotiated - no one wants to try to conduct a
negotiation with 535 people sitting at the table on one side.  Note,
though, that Congress still has to approve the deal.  The current motion is
less akin to the addition of chefs, and more akin to the addition of
tasters.  No one has ever suggested that too many tasters ruin the broth.
This does not call for the EPCC to participate in contract negotiation; it
simply calls for the EPCC to vote up or down on the contract the chair
freely negotiates with the prospective employee.  It doesn't call for the
LNC to participate in contract negotiation; it allows the LNC to see the
contract before it is executed.  This is not seating an additional 3 people
at the table, let alone 17.  The broth will be just fine, and will still
have only 2 or 3 cooks involved in its preparation.

I have argued for this change since joining the LNC.  I think it is
well-supported by EPCC reports at prior meetings and by information
presented at those meetings.  The change makes sense institutionally; the
evidence is there, and arguments against this change have been addressed at
several meetings.  I urge you to support this amendment.

Joshua Katz

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2015 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.*
> *Sponsor:*  Mattson, Kirkland, Goldstein, Riemers
>
> *Motion:*  amend the Policy Manual by *inserting* and striking out text
> as specified in the attached PDF
>
> Alicia Mattson
> LNC Secretary
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151022/cf123f80/attachment-0002.html>