RE: [council] voting procedures
I disagree to the extent that I would like to have time to review motions on policy with my constituency. I believe we all should have the right and opportunity. In fact one of the items I remain a little disconcerted about is that the resolution today was not able to be vetted by the constituencies. Therefore, I would recommend that all resolutions be provided with at least 1 weeks notice prior to a meeting or a vote. Then, we can have a voting period by phone or e-mail. Lets not forget that we represent communities of interest. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:09 AM To: Council (E-mail) Subject: [council] voting procedures I do agree - an quick e-mail vote process on policy issues would be most useful.
Jeff, you are quite right about consultation. We all want to do this and indeed the old DNSO procedures laid all this out. Nothing should change for normal issues. The other flexibility is when there is a need to make a quick decision. Philip
Neuman, Jeff wrote:
I disagree to the extent that I would like to have time to review motions on policy with my constituency.
Jeff, this does not change my proposal. Even when we have the proposals one week, or one month, before the call, the problem with on-the-fly amendments remain. If a motion is not amendned at all and was on the table before the meeting, no problem with the usual proceudre. But whenever we start to play with its language, I would like to see: * a "visual support" (if you all were using Macs, I'd suggest SubEthaEdit http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/). * In case some people cannot access the written version of the amendments, and specifically request so, that the vote be delayed and performed in the immediate 24 hours though email. I'ts not about time for digesting the policies, but the edits... taht sometime affect the substance. Amadeu
participants (3)
-
Amadeu Abril i Abril
-
Neuman, Jeff
-
Philip Sheppard