|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I appologize for this being late. Catching up on the new year.
I vote Disapprove.
On 22.214.171.124 I agree with Bob O's comment that most of the items in the qualification list are features of the office, not qualifications for the position. All of the items are already covered by the text above (some are covered by the statement that confirmation and reconfirmation are the same as for other appointed positions but the term should perhaps be Reaffirmation or Affirmation because that is the term in 7.1.3 (see comment on 7.1.3).
126.96.36.199 I'm concerned that this provision moves us from the frying pan to the fire. "In cases of questions of the validity of an election" is vague or overly broad. Can a mere raising of a question by anyone bring this provision into force? That allows too much opening for a minority to raise havoc. This rule should only be added if we can accompany it with some standard for judging an election in doubt. For example, one might state that for this provision to take effect they executive committee must receive a written complaint detailing the flaws in the election and must have a majority vote on whether the complaint is substantive enough to justify the action. Perhaps the setting aside of election results should require a supermajority (2/3) of the executive committee (because it seems likely that the flaws should be very clear cut and substantive to justify the action of setting aside a vote).
The last sentence doesn't seem to fit the rest of the text. The prior text doesn't mention confirmation and already specifies who should fill the position. Perhaps it should be: If there is no person in the succession available to serve, the position may be left vacant ....
7.1.3 This section uses the term reaffirmation, but 7.1.2 used "confirmation" We should normalize to use either affirmation/reaffirmation or confirmation/reconfirmation but not both.
188.8.131.52 Something is missing. There needs to be a statement of who can call such a meeting. I think it should be the same as for calling an email motion: the chair or the chair's designee (normally a vice-chair).
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.