Re: Clarification

[Stephen Marshall]

I just realized that Colleen and I were having a conversation that
should be shared. so I am sending to the list-serve. My response below.
>
> On 4/10/2012 5:43 PM, Colleen Deignan wrote:
>
> "Any member of the Occupy Burlington community may raise a
> motion to block participation in the finance working group for
> any period of time by any other person."
>
> hey stephen,
>
> This is the part that I didn't quite understand. Hope things
> are going well.
>
> Colleen
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Stephen Marshall
> <visi...@burlingtontelecom.net
> <mailto:visi...@burlingtontelecom.net>> wrote:
>
> Trust in the Members of the finance WG is its credibility. If
> there is a finance person that a member of the GA doesn't trust,
> the member of the GA must have the opportunity to demand the
> removal that untrusted person. But I would not have the fate and
> worth of the finance person rest on the opinion of one other
> person. It must rest in the hands of the entire GA. So a member of
> the community may raise a motion to remove the finance person from
> the finance WG, but then the entire GA must agree that this person
> is truly untrustworthy.
>
> I was unsure of how to rest this choice. What if a quarter of the
> members of the GA do not trust a particular person? Does this
> level of distrust not damage the Finance group? It would be
> unusual in democratic process to say that 25% wins the vote, but
> it could be framed as only 75% in favor of the person, and that is
> not consensus. But then, if we require consensus support for a
> particular person, that one person who has a conflict with that
> member can block the finance person's participation, despite the
> real desire of the entire remainder of the community for that
> person to stay in the job. I would like to allow a split vote
> where in trust from at least 75 or 90% of the community is
> required for the finance person to keep that job. I am glad you
> asked this question, and I hope that helps.
>
> The reason for "any period" is that a previous clause limits the
> power of the finance group to remove someone to one meeting. This
> clarifies that the GA is not limited in the time it is allowed to
> remove someone. It could be temporary or permanent.
>
>
On 4/11/2012 3:16 PM, Colleen Deignan wrote:
> Hmm yes that's tricky. Consensus is a tricky thing.. I agree that
> this is a necessary clause.
I would like to propose that any member of the finance group must have
the confidence of some percentage - I am thinking 90% - of the
community, if challenged at GA. I would need to rewrite this clause. How
do people feel about this?

--
This reply email has been edited to reduce volume and to simplify reading it.

Stephen Marshall
11 Hungerford Terrace (out back)
Burlington Vermont 05401
Dispolemic.Blogspot.Com
802-861-2316 Landline
802-922-1446 Cell