[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