|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 0:13:20 GMT -5
To All:
Dawn and I and a couple of other members (David, Donna) were having a discussion on Matt's FB group page and Dawn posted the following question. Unfortunately, she was working off her iPad and couldn't copy/paste it, so she asked me to do so, as she had to get to bed.
So, the question below is actually from Dawn, and is for ALL delegates to respond so a consensus can be reached.
How would you and other delegates feel if Alex Easton Brown convened the CC2.0, then took a vote as to whether the delegates wanted to operate with him as chair under the agenda and voting system set up by MP and the SC or not. If "not" wins then he would open the floor for a vote for a chairperson. That person would then run the meeting from then on out and the delegates would decide on agenda, etc. if the delegates vote for Alex, then the predetermined agenda, etc. would be used.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 14, 2012 0:18:10 GMT -5
I wholly support this, with one caveat. Every elected delegate and every candidate who was not elected but has accepted the position of at-large delegate who appears at the convention center when registration opens must be permitted entry and permitted to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Jun 14, 2012 0:18:11 GMT -5
I don't know enough about what has transpired before so I defer to Maureen and Dawn to determine what should occur. Whatever they decide is good by me.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 0:25:37 GMT -5
Well, Donna, you'll have to wait a bit for my two cents. Not only is it late and I still have a ton of packing to get done, but I don't want to influence anyone else's response, so I'm going to hold off on this one until others give their views.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 12:04:40 GMT -5
I know I said I was waiting, but the more I thought about this when I finally got to bed last night (early this morning, really), the more I didn't like it.
For one thing, most of us don't know Alex, and therefore we have no idea if he'd be a good chairperson or not. But the second and even more important fact is that there is no reason voting for Alex has to mean accepting MP's preferred agenda and voting process (which, let's face it, that's what this is). And certainly not without having the chance to read and review the agenda and voting proposal first.
No matter what is decided, each part of this (chairperson, agenda, voting process) must be voted upon INDIVIDUALLY. There should not be any package deals.
So, as I see it, we actually have two choices:
1 - we vote on each part of this (Alex as temporary chair to open proceedings, then the agenda, and then the voting process) separately, after being provided with details of the proposed agenda and voting process and taking time (say 3 days) to review them; or
2 - we elect our own *temporary* chairperson here on the forum before we ever get to the convention hall. That person will be charged with opening the proceedings, as well as leading a vote on the agenda and voting process. This chair will also provide an opportunity for the election of a permanent chair by motioning for a vote. If the motion is seconded, the temporary chair will accept nominations for the office. The proceedings will then break for lunch so that the delegates can get to know the nominees in order to make an informed decision.
The temporary chair's final duty will be calling everyone back to order after lunch and conducting the vote for permanent chair. Unless the temporary chair chooses to run in that contest and wins, their duty will end when a new chair is elected.
That's my answer and suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 12:33:48 GMT -5
I would also suggest that we delegates work on our own proposed agenda and voting process, and publish these, so that everyone can see at least one alternative to the pre-determined agenda and voting process being offered by the SC.
That way, when we vote on those items, we have something to compare the SC's agenda and voting process against.
I can create a section for all three votes to take place - with one topic being the temporary opening chairperson position, another being the agenda issue, and the third being the voting process issue. I can add a poll to the top of each topic once we have other candidates as temporary Chair and alternative agenda and voting suggestions, so that all the members can vote for their preference right within the topic (that means any delegates who have not officially registered for the forum need to do so), and we all (including the SC and MP) agree to abide by the results of the voting.
After all, that IS the democratic way to do things, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 14, 2012 14:27:13 GMT -5
I agree with Maureen and Jon here. First, I do not see why voting yes or no on Alex being the Chair should lock us into a process. Second, I do not think the "pre-determined agenda" that MP and the SC are proposing has been well thought-out or articulated, and certainly it does not seem to have been vetted with the delegates. Here is a document comparing hat I understand to be the MPSC process, alongside a basic process that several delegates came up with independently: docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApTLOEx_hDsidDVVZjhndFdQYXJCLTlPZmhCa214OXcThird, having MP and the SC nominate one person and ask for an up or down vote creates an inherent bias, and is undemocratic. My counter proposal would be to have someone opening the meeting, probably take a roll call. Then that person would open the floor for nominating a Chairperson. I would advocate for having the nomination seconded in order to put a nominee in the running for chair, and then I would allow nominees time to speak, or to have someone speak on their behalf. Maybe 2-5 minutes for each candidate. Then I would have a vote for the Chair. Then the Chair would be responsible for facilitating any debate or votes that need to be taken in order to put the rules, process and agenda in place, which hopefully we can largely hammer out in the next two weeks and get an idea of what the basic consensus is, but this part of the process would not be connected to who the chairperson is. Fourth, based on my interactions with Alex, I probably would not vote for him unless he could convince me that he can show respect for all sides of an argument and build consensus, which he has not done so far. But the only way I would even consider it would be if his nomination for chair did not also mean that the MPSC will then set the entire process/agenda.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 16:36:41 GMT -5
For myself, I'm totally against the "25 points" option. I see no reason to use this when we can have a simple up or down vote on each grievance. We can then use the yes vote count to rank the grievances, with those getting the most yes votes being listed first, and on down to those getting the least yes votes (but still at least 51%). Furthermore, I think the point system is likely to be confusing, and to require that we spend too much time explaining how to use it. Time is precious since we only have two days to finalize all this (since the last day is primarily for the final ratification vote, signing the Declaration, and then celebrating our accomplishment and the nation's birthday). Therefore, we shouldn't waste any of it explaining a complicated point system when everyone clearly understands a simple "yes or no" voting system. **It's my personal view that any grievance which does not garner at least 51% of yes votes from the delegates should not be included (unless it can be combined with another grievance) at this time. We can always reconvene and prepare a second list of grievances next year - assuming we have gotten our primary list addressed AND redressed by then. **I think one of the best possible purposes of this forum is already in place, in the Grievance section. There are already a number of proposed grievances listed there, although there are some that were on the original suggested list that are not there yet. When I have a chance this weekend, I'll go through the list and add those as new topics unless they can be combined with existing topics.
Also, I have a suggestion for how to organize the grievances both for debate and in the final document, which is to use a simple outline format, for example: TITLE/Short Description of Grievance- Statement of why/how this issue harms Americans
- Suggested redress/solution/change needed (may include more than one option).
Using the above format, we can create a title that encompasses several facets of the same general grievance topic, then write a short blurb with specifics about how that issue harms Americans, and then add as many suggested solutions (redress) as necessary. For example: Grievance #1 - Reform or Revoke the Filibuster in the Senate - The Minority Leader of the US Senate said, "Our (the GOP's) number one goal is to make Obama a one-term President". He and his party, despite being in the minority by popular vote of the American people, have brought our government to a near standstill by abusing the Senate's filibuster rule, effectively making every bill that comes up for a vote need 60 votes instead of 51 in order to even get to the floor for passage. This does great harm to the American people who, especially in a time of economic crisis, need our government to GOVERN. Instead, we not only cannot get the People's work done, but our duly elected President is in the 4th year of his term and STILL cannot get all his cabinet appointments approved. This situation is unacceptable and MUST be redressed immediately.
Redress Suggestions: - 1 - Immediate passage of Senate Filibuster rules that require any Senator who wishes to filibuster a bill to remain in the Senate chamber and retain the floor (speaking) for the duration. The Senator who leads the filibuster may cede the floor to other Senators who wish to join in the filibuster, but he or she may NOT leave the chamber for more than an hour (for meals, bathroom break, returning calls, etc) or the filibuster ends. And yes, that means that they will have to sleep in the chamber, if they can find enough speakers to retain the floor while they sleep.
- 2 - Presidential appointments to fill out cabinet positions may not be filibustered for more than 1 week, at which time they must come to the floor for an up or down vote.
- 3 - In cases of national security, economic crisis, natural disaster, or other situations that cannot wait to be resolved, the filibuster rule will be automatically suspended for any proposed legislation that addresses whichever type of problem caused the suspension. All legislation relating to such urgent issues must go to the floor for an up or down vote within 48 hours.
- 4 - These "new" (actually, this is in part a restoration of the old rules for a filibuster) rules may NEVER be revoked or altered, unless it is to remove the filibuster option completely. At NO time will the Senate be allowed to reinstate the unlimited filibuster or remove the requirement that the leader of the filibuster must remain in the chamber until the filibuster ends except for meal and other short breaks.
Obviously, the language above is off the top of my head and not how the final filibuster grievance (if it makes it on our list) will be written. It is used only as an example so that everyone can see how this organizes our grievance list in a way that is easily readable and keeps all the important parts (grievance, explanation of the harm being done, and suggested forms of redress) together in a logical and orderly way. This format also allows for the combination of related grievances under one "banner" (ie: the short title), with room below to describe the various facets of the grievance and the harm each facet causes, as well as plenty of room for as many suggested solutions as are needed to cover all the facets of the grievance. This can be useful with grievances such as campaign finance reform & overturning Citizens United, which are related grievances - or two facets of the same general issue, which is the undue influence of money on our laws and the people who make those laws (ie: Congress). We can use the "undue influence of money" as the title grievance, then list Citizens United as one of the problems (with the others being donor secrecy, lobbyist influence, etc.), and have as many redress suggestions as necessary. By using that format, it not only keeps the information re each grievance organized and easy to read, but also allows us to have a reasonably sized list of grievances (say the 10-15 that has been discussed) while including between description of harm and suggested modes of redress, many of the "wish list" items that are related to that general topic. In addition, if we use this format to create a list of the top 20 or so grievances for distribution to the delegates at the start of our Congress, it can serve as part of the agenda for the debate over each grievance, while giving all the delegates a template to work from in formulating their responses and/or introducing any grievances that we haven't listed or that can't be combined with an existing item on the list. By the way - it will be easy to create an itemized list like that in Excel (easier than in Word because Excel has more features we can use in the table), and then insert the Excel table into our Word document between the Preamble (if we decide to have one) and the closing statement. (I have the skills necessary to do this when the time comes.) Others may have better suggestions, but this was the best I could come up with for now.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 14, 2012 17:30:58 GMT -5
I support the responses provided by Jon Denn and Michael Gentilucci. I also suggest that no action be taken on "Dawn's Question Re Chair & Agenda for CC2".
There is much to be disclosed by the SC to the delegates; principally, the dozens of critically important questions/comments raised by various delegates over many weeks such as those posed by Michael Gentilucci, David Itkin and others. I recall reading a thread recently that such delegate questions/comments comprise of 3 or more pages. And yet those questions/comments remain unanswered.
Why?
We should stay on the track and request again that the SC respond to prior delegate questions/comments in a timely-date certain manner. Roles, responsibilities, relationships, accomplishments and successes are at stake here. Here is David’s repeated request for a response by the SC:
Cooperation and peace in our time would break out, near-instantaneously, if the rules were implemented.
"... subject to the election rules and requirements for Delegates, the Delegates to CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 shall implement their own procedures, agenda, code of conduct, internal elections and/or appointments of committee members and officers to efficiently and expeditiously accomplish the People's mandate...."
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 14, 2012 18:03:44 GMT -5
I am glad to see some discussion of my proposal! Maureen and Michael G. Make valid points. I was just trying to come up with something that would bring the delegates and SC more on the same page. I have been out of town all day and need to prepare for the mtg tonight of the SC. Out of respect for my fellow SC members I will say no more at this time but I will be back on here about 10:30 pm EST and will report on the SC mtg.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 15:59:24 GMT -5
How was Alex Easton Brown selected? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 18, 2012 16:46:21 GMT -5
He was chosen by the steering committee so that the steering committee could control the whole convention from the top down, rather than having the delegates control the convention from the bottom up. It's a 180 degree turn from how this project was advertised.
It is the hope of many of us that all of the steering committee machinations to pre-cook the final result of the Congress will be blown out of the water by lopsided majority votes.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 18, 2012 17:51:05 GMT -5
Here is an option: Have three key people 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.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 26, 2012 13:44:33 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.
I have a draft agenda that incorporates this.
Thanks Mike Kelley
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 26, 2012 14:02:54 GMT -5
|
|