[Peace-discuss] AWARE Minutes-10-10-04 (objection and voting rules)

[Randall Cotton]

Yes, there were rules agreed on in June/July of last year regarding
consensus and a percentage vote alternative for making decisions/resolutions
within AWARE. Also, for better or for worse, there was a provision for
raising objection regarding a decision made when one was not in attendance.

First, though, a technical point of order: since the "peace" list is meant
to be reserved for announcements and meeting minutes only, I'd like to
encourage folks to keep conversations like this on peace-discuss and
not peace. And don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to single anyone out -
several folks have already double-posted.

Now, here are the pertinent passages from the minutes to refresh folks'
memories:

>From the June 29, 2003 meeting minutes:
========== begin minutes excerpt ============
Process:

An agreement was made that consensus is not always needed.

The group also agreed that policy is not more important procedure.

Ninety percent approval is sufficient in a group decision.

There was talk on when a vote becomes final. Answer: Read meeting minutes
and
any objections should be raised at the next meeting.
=========== end minutes excerpt =============
The entire post can be seen at:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/2003-July/003343.html

Also, from the very next (July 6, 2003) meeting minutes:
========== begin minutes excerpt ============
As for "Process", it was agreed that in cases where consensus does not
occur at a meeting, a vote of 90% will be needed to effect an action.
This action may be revisited upon someone's desire, who may not have
been present at the vote,  at a following meeting.
=========== end minutes excerpt =============
This entire post can be seen at:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace/2003-July/002748.html

Now, from these two excerpts (and from my own personal recollections, which
essentially match the text), it is clear that if Carl wishes, he may raise
his objection in person on Sunday, whereupon the decision will be revisited.
That is:

1. Carl raises his objection (if he attends and wishes to)

2. There is discussion.

3. Consensus without objection is checked (and if it exists, the decision is
finalized)

4. If, however, there is an objection (which prevents consensus), anyone may
call for a vote. A 90% or greater vote in favor finalizes the decision, less
than 90% cancels the decision. We have no provision for "abstentions", so
the 90% would be with respect to the total number of votes (as opposed to
the total number of people in attendance, some of whom may choose not to
vote either way).

Most folks in AWARE, I estimate, are probably unhappy with the specter of
hashing this out at the next meeting. I'm not particularly thrilled with it
myself. However, I also suspect that most folks would dislike arbitrarily
discarding established rules even more (and I have to count myself in that
group).

Perhaps Carl will abstain.

But if not, I feel we should prepare for the ramifications.

Carl, I think it would be of great help if you would disclose whether you
plan to raise formal objection in person at the next meeting. Would you care
to oblige?

R

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alfred Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>;
<Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] AWARE Minutes-10-10-04


: Sorry, you can find it in the minutes.
:
: At 1:20 AM -0500 10/14/04, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
: >I don't believe we ever adopted such a rule.  How indeed would we do it?
: >Unanimously? By 85%?
: >
: >Our consensus has always been informal, and it's probably best to keep it
: >that way.  I've argued against adopting the formal consensus rules
: >("blocking concerns," etc.) used by some civic groups.  --CGE
: >
: >
: >On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Alfred Kagan wrote:
: >
: >>  But remember that we adopted a policy that we could go ahead without
: >>  100% consensus.I think the number we approved was 85%.
: >>
: >
: >_______________________________________________
: >Peace-discuss mailing list
: >Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
: >http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
:
:
: -- 
:
:
: Al Kagan
: African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
: Africana Unit, Room 328
: University of Illinois Library
: 1408 W. Gregory Drive
: Urbana, IL 61801, USA
:
: tel. 217-333-6519
: fax. 217-333-2214
: e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu
: _______________________________________________
: Peace-discuss mailing list
: Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss