[reccom] Re: Proposal B clarification

[Kristin Purdy]

To address Lu's question at the end of his message below, mathmatically 
speaking, votes of 5-4 and 4-5 are even less decisive than votes of 4-3 and 
3-4 and I believe second round votes that earn 5-4 or 4-5 should be sent to 
a third round.

Kris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lu Giddings
  To: David Wheeler
  Cc: Colby Neuman ; Eric Huish ; Kristin Purdy ; Larry Tripp ; Lu 
Giddings - gmail ; Milt Moody ; Robert Bond ; Ron Ryel
  Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:41 PM
  Subject: Re: Proposal B clarification


  hi David,

  sorry, I've been out of town the last few days. I don't think your request 
is obtuse. I think it's only proper to present the proposal as it would be 
integrated into the bylaws.

  Milt, when you're back in town and have a few free moments, would you 
please amend these to proposal B?


  IV.C.10.b. For Second Round votes to be decisive and stop the record from 
going to third round, at least seven of the nine Members must have voted and 
the results must be 5-2 (or higher - e.g., 5-3, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-0, 7-1, 
7-2, 8-1, 9-0) or 2-5 (or lower - e.g. 3-5, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 
1-8, 0-9) for the vote to be decisive. 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 for the vote to be decisive. At least seven of the nine Members 
must have voted and the results must be 5-2 (or higher - e.g., 6-1, 6-2, 
6-3, 7-0, 7-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-0) for the vote to be accepted or 2-5 (or lower - 
e.g. 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 1-8, 0-9) for the vote to be rejected. If 
it stays 4-3 or 3-4 vote then it is considered rejected.




  Question: should 5-4 (or 4-5) be considered decisive, or should they fall 
in the "ambiguous vote" category as 4-3 and 3-4? Do any of the rest of you 
have an opinion on this, or on anything I propose above?


  Thanks,

  lu






  On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:35 AM, David Wheeler <dswheeler at utah.gov> wrote:

    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/20090525/54d623a2/attachment.htm