Posting comments here as not enabled for the wiki.
I am disappointed that it requires a motion for policy issues to be discussed at LACRALO calls. The point of the RALO is to do just that - disseminate information on various policies to the members, discuss, and revert to the ALAC with the regional POV. As many have indicated, in the past it was done all the time. Now, not any more.
So obviously I am in favor of the outcome. However, generally, I am not one for mandating behavior. If the motion passes, what is the proposed mechanism for ensuring compliance? Do we remove the Chair and/or Secretariat for not complying? What happens if there is urgent non-policy business (such as the final steps in a Showcase) and the meeting is turned to that purpose instead of a policy discussion?
Mandates are useful at times, but restrictive.
I'm also not comfortable with the time limits on the policy discussion on the agenda. Maybe more time is needed, maybe less. If the discussion is wrapped up quickly- maybe people need time to think, research, discuss with their ALS membership - the motion as proposed does not leave flexibility in the agenda - do we stay on the policy issue for 30 minutes even if the discussion took 10?
I sum, I agree with the idea behind the motion, that policy needs to be a focus in LACRALO, but I think that IF we are to have a motion to mandate policy discussion, this one needs some serious amendment for it to be workable. I also really think that mandating is a bad step. If we need to force people to discuss policy, we need to look at the people we have. If they're not interested in policy, then why are they here?
Jacqueline