Scott wrote:
One SC making a decision about procedure that a couple of
subsequent SCs followed? That doesn't sound like a precedent
that should automatically be given the force of law.
Why not? Since it has always
been that way in OHGenWeb, for all
Coordinators to directly participate in rule-making, it's the established
process adopted by the SCs and CCs, which makes it a rule. The AB, when
deciding what to do in some circumstances where there is no written rule,
often site precedent and then follow the precedent.
It is just as easy to argue that the precedent is that SC has the
initiative to organize discussion however they want, which I'm
sure you don't want to accept (nor do I).
That, my good man, is exactly my
point. The SC has decided for us, against
the established process, and without letting the CCs decide, that the SC
intends to "organize discussion however they want" which is by a committee
selected by the SC. That would be the same as if I filed a grievance
against the SC, and the SC selected the committee to determine the outcome
of the grievance which the Coordinators then vote upon.
The Coordinators aren't being given the chance to directly participate in
making the rules that they'll have to work under. The only Coordinators who
will be allowed to make the rules, will be the ones the SC decides she
wants to make the rules, after which the SC will have "something to present
to all the CC's to vote on." No discussion, just vote.
It has been my experience, in observing the USGenWeb from day one, that
most Coordinators vote in favor of what an SC or SC-appointed committee
wants, which makes an unfair balance or power since it's the Coordinators
who should be making decisions governing their state. Our SC says "I was
elected by Ohio CC's to represent the Ohio CC's which is exactly what I
hope to accomplish." Representing the CCs is not making decisions for the
CCs, it's making decisions based upon what the CCs want.
I would worry about establishing OHGenWeb rules can by made up by an SC
and/or SC-appointed committee. An SC should not have anything to do with
making rules that govern an SC, just like parties involved in a grievance
filed with the AB are not allowed to participate in the decision making -
because it's a conflict of interest.
So what we really need to be discussing, right now, is a proposal
that lays out the details of our accepted parliamentary procedure.
I'm not sure
I follow you here? Isn't that what Sturgis is all about?
Daryl