BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2003-03 > 1047078679


From: "Phyllis Rippee" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-05
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:11:19 -0600
References: <000601c2e4fd$20357bb0$0f06fea9@JANA>


Hmmmm! It's not about fairness, it's about following a Just (?) procedure.
Then, a "just" procedure does not mean fairness. That's even more confusing
than ever.

However, if you want to have your vote on the motion as is, go ahead, I
won't stand in your way.

Phyllis Rippee
SW/SC CC Representative
----- Original Message -----
From: Jana Black <>
To: <>
Sent: 07 March, 2003 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-05


> Yes, we want verified CC input, first and foremost! A petition from the
> small percentage we received tells us those CCs are unhappy. However,
> they are far from the majority in the state, so we need to get a "read"
> on the voice of the majority. If the majority is content and we do not
> have a 2/3 vote, then, there is no reason to interfere further and we
> can inform the complainants that their petition was proved to be
> groundless, the state business goes forward. If 2/3 of CCs urge removal,
> then it is up to the AB to weigh the evidence that we have and confirm
> or deny the request for removal. This is not about fairness, Phyllis, it
> is about following just procedure as an elected body. The AB is to serve
> as an objective authority that stands away form a state situation that
> has perhaps gotten imbued with emotion and decide whether the evidence
> offered offers cause or not, only in light of a 2/3 vote of CCs. If that
> vote is not there, it is only the petitioners we will reply to.
>
> Jana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:42 AM
> To:
> Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-05
>
>
> So, what we are saying to the GA CCs is that we are going to allow you
> to vote on whether or not to remove your SC.
>
> BUT, if we allow you to vote on this, you are not to interpret this
> "allowance vote" as the AB portion of the required vote to remove your
> SC.
>
> We will wait until we see how your vote goes and if you vote to not
> remove your SC, we'll be off the hook and not have to do anything to
> indicate what we believe should be done.
>
> Or, We will wait until we see how your vote goes and if you vote to
> remove your SC, we'll have to vote and if enough of us don't agree with
> what you have decided, we'll negate your vote and you'll just have to
> live with it.
>
> Where is the fairness in that? That is exactly why the Standing Rule
> [that does not apply in this case] calls for both removal votes to be
> done simultaneously......even though one may negate the other, there
> won't be any previous knowledge to possibly bring undue influence from
> one entity to the other.
>
> Phyllis Rippee
> SW/SC CC Representative
>
>
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/official/standing-procedures.html
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Want to know Who's Who in USGenWeb? Visit:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho-index.html
> To update your information, contact
>
>
>

This thread: