[Lnc-business] status of call for electronic meeting
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jan 24 03:45:03 EST 2018
I know the call for e-meeting is dead, but I think this is the last place I
gave a region 1 report - WA has withdrawn its yes vote due to a defect in
the notice of its meeting so as of right now has neither a yes or a no. If
WA was counted, the threshold has still been reached. However, when a
state does not respond, I treat them as either implicitly deferring to my
judgment or not being counted in the 2/3. In either event, Region 1 would
still carry a yes for suspension and since censure is majority, easily
carries a vote for censure.
Sorry this is a bit late - getting ready to go to the AZ convention this
weekend and just got off of work (1:45am) - lots of my time last week
devoted to this and now I have a lot of work to catch up on.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
> The email ballot for Censure isn’t tied to this call for an electronic
> meeting. It doesn’t stop members that wish to call a meeting from doing so.
> Members can do both.
>
> We DO have the required number of sponsors for the email motion to censure.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 20, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 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 --------------
I know the call for e-meeting is dead, but I think this is the last
place I gave a region 1 report - WA has withdrawn its yes vote due to a
defect in the notice of its meeting so as of right now has neither a
yes or a no. If WA was counted, the threshold has still been reached.
However, when a state does not respond, I treat them as either
implicitly deferring to my judgment or not being counted in the 2/3.
In either event, Region 1 would still carry a yes for suspension and
since censure is majority, easily carries a vote for censure.
Sorry this is a bit late - getting ready to go to the AZ convention
this weekend and just got off of work (1:45am) - lots of my time last
week devoted to this and now I have a lot of work to catch up on.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
The email ballot for Censure isn’t tied to this call for an
electronic meeting. It doesn’t stop members that wish to call a
meeting from doing so. Members can do both.
We DO have the required number of sponsors for the email motion to
censure.
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 20, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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][3]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][4]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][5]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [3][4][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
> References
> 1. mailto:[5][7]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6][8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. [7][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [8][10]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [9][11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[12]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:[13]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 5. mailto:[16]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[17]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. [18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 8. mailto:[19]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. [20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [21]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[23]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
4. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
5. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
7. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
10. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
12. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
13. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
14. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
17. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
19. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
21. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
23. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list