|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 16:45:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 19, 2012 13:35:51 GMT -5
Procedural Step 1: Vote on a Chair or President - COMMENT: I don't think a Chairperson or President is needed nor is it appropriate at the convention because we are not a Board or a Committee, we are an Assembly or a Body of delegates. I suggest having three key people to guide the convention through the processes:
a) A nonpartisan or neutral Facilitator. Facilitation is a management skill, and it is critical to have someone who has no stake in the outcome.
b) A nonpartisan or neutral Mediator. While facilitators do most of their work "at the table", when the parties are face-to-face with dead-locked issues, a mediator steps in to moderate the discussions and reach an outcome of ‘mutual gains’.
c) A nonpartisan or neutral Arbiter: Final decision maker to break deadlocked issues upon failure to mediate successfully. Some times the disagreeing parities only disagree on a small part of the overall issue after mediation is concluded.
However, it sure appears that the decision has already been made to have a Chairperson.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 14:28:20 GMT -5
good points var, though I don't think it's a big deal if we call the person a Chair or a facilitator. Point is we need a person or persons in charge of keeping things running smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by elioth on Jun 19, 2012 14:38:28 GMT -5
Because this could really be a bit of a mess, and because few if any of us will know anything about the potential candidates to "facilitate" or "chair", I believe that those who have put in the most effort are best suited to select someone who will keep things running smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 15:06:00 GMT -5
That may be the case in many instances, but one quick look at the record of this organization in regards to voting, outreach, fundraising, and internal communications shows that a lot of the mess comes from a lack of competent leadership. There are many delegates who have been working very hard on this as well, and someone like Jon Denn is definitely more qualified to run this sort of meeting than who the Steering Committee has nominated, but you'll have to decide that for yourself once the nominees and their records are put in front of you, if you are given that chance. This thread has some related information. 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=scn&action=display&thread=53All the interactions I have had with the Steering Committee member that has been appointed as a possible chair have shown that he is not a facilitator or consensus builder. In fact when I asked repeatedly if the forums could be reorganized in a fashion that made them easier to navigate, much like they are now, and got numerous responses from delegates agreeing with me, Alex Easton Brown started ranting on the old forum typing in all caps and saying the forum is a historical document that should not be altered in any way, equating what I was saying to what happened at the council of Nicaea. Of course when I explained the differences, he didn't have a response, and eventually the consensus to better organize the forum was acted upon, but not without an uphill battle against the steering committee, which has been an issue in acting on numerous things that appear to have a broad consensus among active delegates.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 21, 2012 11:57:29 GMT -5
rankleespeaking: Very thoughtful thoughts on your part. Yes, “keeping things running smoothly" is probably the supreme goal for the upcoming convention since that goal apparently has not be achieved during the past several months of discourse by the ‘parties’.
The chairperson is responsible for WHAT happens during a ‘meeting’ (which I think is typically is a Board or a Committee in session). This person is generally the one with the most control of the situation; he or she calls ‘meetings’, plans agendas, and makes decisions for the whole group. Even in a very democratic situation, where the Chairperson has an equal vote with anyone else in the meeting, the control of the meeting is in his or her hands.
A facilitator's responsibility is to pay attention to HOW people in the ‘meeting’ (which I think is typically an Assembly or Group of many people) collaborate and work together, so as to assure that the group definitely accomplishes their goals. A facilitator:
• Challenges thinking • Helps the group creates lists of important points. • Summarizes the issues from time to time. • Shares ideas when they can help the meeting progress. • Provides handouts when needed to clarify the main points. • Raises questions to bring out different viewpoints. • Guides discussion, but does not lead it. • Restates ideas when the person presenting them is not clear. • Provides constructive criticism when, for example, a person or people attempt to dominate the meeting.
I believe we are focusing on the same favorable result/outcome and so indeed if a Chairperson is elected/appointed by either the delegates or the SC and that Chairperson is qualified and functions as a facilitator rather than a controlling Chairperson, I am very fine with that. Tx Frank.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 26, 2012 22:07:26 GMT -5
Perhaps we don't just need "one" chair. Perhaps we could vote at the beginning of each session on who would chair, and if a previous chair did an effective job, that could be voted on whether that chair should continue into the next session.
Also, for posterity sake, there probably should be a "scribe" or someone specific to notate all important discussion (though a video recording could do this too), but it's always good to keep minutes in any ordered meeting.
Finally, would it also be prudent to have an elected board that could serve as a rules committee, to vote on challenges to the procedures and rules of the convention. The Constitutional Convention had this, as did they have a "style committee" to finalize the language of the grievances.
|
|