Greetings:

 

I agree with all that is said above.  Maybe the Council was a bit premature in its motion or a modification is further due if we cannot resolve it.

 

From what I heard in the meeting, the time frame vs. substantive issue were the bearer of this motion to initiate a separate process.  If there is a conflict of interest we should be aware of, I would suggest the Staff should be in a position to inform us.

 

Thank you.

Sophia

 

On 17/01/06, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

hi,

I agree with this completely.  we should not presume that the staff
manager ecannot do the report.  If they can't or if the report is
deficient in some way, which is _not_ my expectation, then we would
need to figure out what to do next, but I see no reason not to follow
the normal process at this point.

a.

On 17 jan 2006, at 19.01 , Ross Rader wrote:

> That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution
> should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to.
> In our policy development process, the next step is to request the
> creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff
> Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't
> believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation
> will not be met.  In the event that we are unable to execute the
> process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what
> our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those
> bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that
> we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats
> meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining
> outside help, etc.