[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [council] FW: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee
I agree wholeheartedly with you. The idea of a GA elected AdCom is
completely at variance with the By Laws and it (the AdCom) will most likely
attempt to usurp the role of the NC and its support staff (to be
appointed). This is a very bad idea that undermines the existing
I wonder what problem / requirement is being asserted here ?
On Monday, October 04, 1999 5:07 PM, Joe Sims [SMTP:Joe_Sims@jonesday.com]
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If
> are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication
> others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
> your system. Thank you.
> In my role as unofficial legal advisor to the Council, let me offer the
> following. My reading of the Bylaws is not compatible with the creation
> some GA AdCom structure. The Bylaws provide only for a Chair of the GA,
> who is appointed by the NC. In addition, the Bylaws contemplate the the
> work of the DNSO should be done in working groups and drafting committees
> under the management of the NC. The GA, as the Bylaws are now written,
> the pool from which those groups or committees are drawn, but does not
> a direct role in the development or determination of consensus, nor any
> other specific duty other than to serve as a source of nominees for the
> Board, who are then selected by the NC. The Bylaws do not contemplate
> circumstances when the GA would vote on any issue or elect anyone to
> anything. Thus, an elected GA AdCom would seem to be not only
> but also potentially the source of tension with the NC-elected Chair and
> the NC's role to manage the work of the DNSO.
> image moved "Shapiro Ted" <Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org>
> to file: 10/04/99 10:50 AM
> To: "'[council]'" <email@example.com>
> cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
> Subject: [council] FW: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee
> This is not to say that I am against this proposal. But, instead it
> point that I mentioned after the Santiago meetings. What is GA consensus?
> Who determines it? When do we have it? I raise this again because as we
> forward there will be more and more calls for GA consensus on various
> points. I thought that the NC had a role in determinig GA consensus. Any
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Nii N. Quaynor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 4:04 PM
> To: General Assembly of the DNSO
> Subject: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee
> Dear All,
> There is consensus that an elected GA Adcom should be established. We
> subsequently received a number of suggestions on preferred election
> procedures and also relations to the NC, including potential bylaws
> In the meantime, we should advance the process by forming a small group,
> "election committee" from the GA to draft the election announcement and
> manage the voting. We believe that a simple method is preferred and each
> member should have a single vote to cast for each regional seat.
> Members of the election committee, in fairness to all contestants, should
> persons who do not intend to run for a GA Adcom seat.
> This is therefore a call for three voluteers to kick of the process. The
> volunteers should be recommended and the volunteer must accept.
> The election committee needs to be in-place by October, 9. We allow for 2
> weeks of nominating candidates for the Adcom and a week for voting
> just-in-time for LA when the Adcom will be installed.
> << File: pic07925.pcx >>