|
Post by davidindc on Jun 18, 2012 13:29:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 18, 2012 13:31:08 GMT -5
I think this proposed Agenda over-reaches in nearly all of its particulars. Here are my bulleted critques, which I've dutifully sent along, for all the good it will do us.
• The delegates should chose the convention cochairs and any other officials
• The delegates should set the agenda
• The delegates should adopt rules for debate after electing cochairs and adopting an agenda.
• The delegates should be free to adopt language that suits their purpose, independent of whether some authority decides their language isn’t fit for submission as a lawsuit. No document arising from this self-selected group will stand up to a motion to dismiss in federal court, so holding the language of the petition hostage to some arbitrary standard (determined by who, exactly?) for an illusory purpose. Is over-reaching by whoever purports to make that determination.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 18, 2012 13:42:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 17:19:02 GMT -5
Please cast your vote on various elements of the steering committee agenda/process and alternative proposals made by numerous delegates. 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=qfordelAnd to add to what David said, not only does it over-reach, there was no real attempt to get feedback from delegates in the process of creating the agenda, and the proposed process creates an inherent bias toward accepting the SC agenda, especially since the SC has not communicated the alternatives proposed by the delegates. It's sort of like they are the incumbent, and we are a challenger no one has ever heard of.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 19, 2012 23:28:34 GMT -5
I just realized something: in the agenda it states that we can vote it down. It then says that we would follow blah blah rules blah blah (I'm not a veteran of formal meetings, so it's meaningless to me). But if we vote it down, we can follow any process we want, because in rejecting the agenda we also reject the part where it dictates what must happen if the agenda is rejected. I'm starting to think that rejecting the agenda is the way to go...
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 20, 2012 1:31:58 GMT -5
Voting on the agenda is the first vote. If you vote it down, then the floor is yours to come up with a new agenda. the SC is banking on Jane and John Doe delegate voting to go with the proposed agenda. And there has not been much feedback to the email link from delegates proposing changes.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 17:45:57 GMT -5
Dawn, please direct the SC to the delegate voting portion of the forum. There has been some feedback on the proposals there, which seem to indicate a fairly overwhelming preference for many of the proposals the delegates have made over the SC proposal. Even if the entire steering committee voted for your proposal, the delegates would still be in the majority in most cases.
Second, I would like to see all the responses made public asap.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 20, 2012 22:38:38 GMT -5
Dawn:
My feedback was a handful of questions. I don't feel that I can suggest changes without knowing the answers to those questions. However, I'd like to see much more of a debate-style event, where we can actually discuss specific grievances, instead of listening to the same things said over and over and over again (and beginning to be repeated verbatim the longer it goes on -- there WILL be some form of group-think happening with the 2-minute speech plan).
How are we to know which information is accurate and which is not, without being able to discuss and debate and hammer things out?
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 21, 2012 13:04:19 GMT -5
I no longer can see the polling part of the forum. Don't know if it's because I am on the iPad or what. Can someone direct me to where it is?
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 21, 2012 13:57:20 GMT -5
Try this link Dawn.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 21, 2012 13:57:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 22, 2012 4:42:34 GMT -5
See Conference Planning under the topic of Debate and Voting Process.
There I proposed Chair, Sergeant-at-Arms to be voted on and keeping the number rather than the percent of grievances.
I also propose combining common grievances into the 23 or so categories and having subcommittees to finalize the wording of these 23 categories.
Thanks Mike Kelley
|
|