|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
See comments below
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 6:19 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Consent agenda guideline
Here is the current text from the Chair's Guidelines:
The following should be considered for inclusion on the consent agenda upon request:
1) First renewal of a Study Group (either ECSG or WGSG)
2) Public statements (e.g., press releases, responses to regulatory bodies, liaison statements, etc.) that have been announced to the EC email reflector made available to the EC members 24 hours in advance of the start of the meeting.
JD> it is not uncommon for PRs to get sent to the reflector and then subsequent modifications. Are you referring to the final version of the PR after comments / modifications have been made, and not the initial PR that gets sent to the reflector for comment?
3) Presentation of the Tutorial schedule at the opening meeting, only if all presentations have been given to the Recording Secretary according to the guidelines.
4) Other pro-forma information items
5) Meeting minutes from previous meetings if they have been announced to the EC email reflector and distributed 1 week in advance.
JD> I am assuming this is 1 week in advance of the meeting where it would get considered. I would like to reduce the 1 week in advance to 72 hours prior to the , which is the Friday before the Opening Meeting on Monay. Or Tuesday if considered on the Friday Closing.
As currently written it has deadlines for some items but not all. And each item with a deadline has a different deadline.
Since meeting minutes are often lengthy and should be available well before the meeting, it makes sense for them to have a deadline well before the meeting. "1 week in advance" is a bit vague. I assume 1 week before the opening plenary was intended, not 1 week before the time the consent agenda is to be approved.
The deadline of 24 hours in advance that was mentioned on the call appears in 2) which applies to public statements.
Items regarding progression of drafts aren't covered by any of the categories. We approved such items on the consent agenda for the call. Since the language above only says "should be considered" and doesn't prohibit other items.
Looking back at minutes from 2015 through now, I can't find any other cases where we had draft progression motions on the consent agenda.
So, the first question is, are draft progression motions appropriate for the consent agenda?
I tend to think they are. These motions are often approved with little or no discussion/debate. Where there is a question or controversy, they can always be pulled off the agenda.
JD> I agree that default should be to start with consent agenda, and people can request to pull if they so desire.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.