[reccom] Re: Proposal B clarification

[David Wheeler]

Dear Lu,
 
This would indeed clarify the voting procedures.  However, I don't see
this language on the voting page.  When I click on the DETAILS of voting
option B, or any of the other options for that matter, it doesn't show
me your referenced paragraph:
 
"So if, with nine voting members, by voting deadline on a 2nd or 3rd
round vote, at least seven of the nine have voted and the results are
5-2 (or higher - e.g., 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-0, 7-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-0) or
2-5 (or lower - e.g. 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 1-8, 0-9) then
the vote is decisive."
 
You say this comes from a note to Eric (see your previous e-mail
below).  But if it is this we are voting on, shouldn't this language be
a part of the proposed bylaws language?  I am still confused.
 
Sorry for my obtuseness,
 
David

>>> Lu Giddings <seldom74 at gmail.com> 5/21/2009 9:20 AM >>>
hi David,

I think this is covered in the paragraph

"So if, with nine voting members, by voting deadline on a 2nd or 3rd
round vote, at least seven of the nine have voted and the results are
5-2 (or higher - e.g., 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-0, 7-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-0) or
2-5 (or lower - e.g. 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 1-8, 0-9) then
the vote is decisive."

Does this help?

Lu



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM, David Wheeler <dswheeler at utah.gov>
wrote:


Dear Committee,
 
while I have no concerns with the first round votes, I still think the
second and third round votes should be explicitly defined.  Under the
current proposal B, is a second round 6-3 vote "higher" or lower than a
5-2 vote?  And what other combinations go to the second round?  Forgive
me if I am missing something obvious, but I don't see how the current
language allows several combinations of votes to go forward, one way or
another.
 
What do the rest of you think?
 
David

>>> Lu Giddings <seldom74 at gmail.com> 5/20/2009 9:02 PM >>>

Dear committee,

there have been several questions about the particulars of proposal B.
Let me attempt to clarify my intent.

Why would we need to include 8-0 or 9-0 as a definition of a decisive
vote? The last thing we want with a nine member committee is for members
to think their vote is not needed or valued. While 7-0 is still a
decisive vote, we should include 8-0 and 9-0 so that the record
correctly reflects the number of members who participated in the vote.
This is also the case with second and third round voting. The following
is a clip from I note I sent to Eric on this topic:

If we make the proposed change:

"First Round votes have to be 7-0, 8-0, or 9-0 in the affirmative or
0-7, 0-8, or 0-9 in the negative. If a first round record receives any
of these votes then it is considered decisive and no second round is
needed. If anything less than this it goes to second round. "

To me this means that while there are nine voting members, if we have
at least 7 affirmative votes and no negative votes (or seven negative
votes and no positive votes) by the voting deadline then the vote is
considered decisive and does not need to go to the second round. Similar
logic would apply to the language already present determining the
results of 2nd and 3rd round voting.



IV.C.10.b. Second Round votes to be decisive and stop the record from
going to third round has to be 5‑2 (or higher) or 2‑5 (or lower). If it
is 4‑3 or 3‑4 then the record goes to third round.
      IV.C.10.c.  Third round votes have to change a 4‑3 or 3‑4 second
round vote to 5‑2 or 2‑5 to be decisive. If it stays 4‑3 or 3‑4 vote
then it is considered rejected. Likewise if it receives a 5‑2 or 2‑5 on
third round then it is accepted or rejected.

So if, with nine voting members, by voting deadline on a 2nd or 3rd
round vote, at least seven of the nine have voted and the results are
5-2 (or higher - e.g., 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-0, 7-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-0) or 2-5
(or lower - e.g. 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 1-8, 0-9) then the vote
is decisive.



I don't know if this makes sense to you or not. Please, let me know if
you would like further clarification. Thanks,

lu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20090521/46aad60b/attachment-0001.htm