[Lnc-business] status of call for electronic meeting
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sat Jan 20 21:58:03 EST 2018
Joshua, you raise a fair point that 4 email ballot sponsors aren't
sufficient to stop a called meeting, however the other thought I should
have written was that at least one of the email ballot sponsors made
comments that to me said he wanted the email ballot instead of the
meeting. Now that there is a date/time, that could change a person's
willingness to co-sponsor as well if that date/time is objectionable for
some reason. We really need to get the details of the motion first, then
the co-sponsors, instead of co-sponsors for a concept before the details
are defined because the details could ruin it for a co-sponsor.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will join the other one too. I believe we have until midnight
> Pacific to get joiners. It's not clear to me that the mere presence of
> an email ballot means that past statements of joining in a call are not
> meaningful - if that's the case, every call for an electronic meeting
> can be killed by 4 people putting an email ballot together on the
> limine of the required notice time. However, in this instance, where
> there was no past agreement on time and date, I would agree that
> support cannot be inferred.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[1]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
>
> From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for an
> electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee
> and
> specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and the
> topic(s) to be addressed. Meetings must be so called no fewer
> than 2
> days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members, or 7
> days in
> advance for committees with 10 or more members."
> The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s) to be
> addressed.
> Previously there were six people requesting an electronic meeting
> for a
> topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both McKnight
> and
> Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified. Those people
> were:
> Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn.
> Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which implies the
> topic
> is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a
> sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I cannot
> just
> assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the call
> of
> the meeting under different circumstances. I have a lot of email
> clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the following
> people
> join meeting calls:
> 01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz)
> 10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan)
> As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow a
> meeting
> called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser action
> such as
> censure. The scope of notice covers anything in the range
> between the
> status quo and the proposed action which was noticed.
> -Alicia
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [2]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [3]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 2. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Joshua, you raise a fair point that 4 email ballot sponsors aren't
sufficient to stop a called meeting, however the other thought I should
have written was that at least one of the email ballot sponsors made
comments that to me said he wanted the email ballot instead of the
meeting. Now that there is a date/time, that could change a person's
willingness to co-sponsor as well if that date/time is objectionable
for some reason. We really need to get the details of the motion
first, then the co-sponsors, instead of co-sponsors for a concept
before the details are defined because the details could ruin it for a
co-sponsor.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Joshua Katz
<[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
I will join the other one too. I believe we have until midnight
Pacific to get joiners. It's not clear to me that the mere
presence of
an email ballot means that past statements of joining in a call
are not
meaningful - if that's the case, every call for an electronic
meeting
can be killed by 4 people putting an email ballot together on the
limine of the required notice time. However, in this instance,
where
there was no past agreement on time and date, I would agree that
support cannot be inferred.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[1][2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for an
electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee
and
specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and
the
topic(s) to be addressed. Meetings must be so called no fewer
than 2
days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members, or 7
days in
advance for committees with 10 or more members."
The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s) to
be
addressed.
Previously there were six people requesting an electronic
meeting
for a
topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both
McKnight
and
Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified. Those people
were:
Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn.
Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which implies
the
topic
is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a
sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I cannot
just
assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the
call
of
the meeting under different circumstances. I have a lot of
email
clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the following
people
join meeting calls:
01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz)
10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan)
As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow a
meeting
called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser action
such as
censure. The scope of notice covers anything in the range
between the
status quo and the proposed action which was noticed.
-Alicia
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[2][3]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[3][4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[5]alicia.mattson at lp.org
2. mailto:[6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
5. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
6. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list