open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked The status and involvement of Alternate members of the CSM
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 21:20:55
In the elections for the Council, nine pilots were chosen to serve on the Council and five alternates were placed in reserve should any of those nine drop out. There have been discussions in various locales about the status of those alternates and this post seeks to detail the considerations.

Q. Should the alternate members take part in the (online) discussions of the Council members?

In favour of this position is that there is both a wider source of knowledge available during the discussion on a topic, and that should an elected member have to leave the CSM for whatever reason then the alternate is already "up to speed" on most of the issues which have come before the Council, such that the CSM wouldn't stumble and could serve the pilot population throughout at full strength. The alternates do not get to attend the face-to-face meeting with CCP and are not subject to the NDA so might not be able to participate in every discussion.

Against this is the simple point that "they weren't elected to serve this time around", indeed it could be quite possible for someone to stand every six months, never become one of the nine elected to serve (who are limited to two sessions of the CSM) but each time be one of the five reserves and therefore have an input to the CSM for years on end. Whilst this is possible under the present rules it would be appear contrary to natural law for someone not actually 'winning' the election to have such a long period of strong input to it.

This is likely to be a topic at the next meeting of the CSM - yuor views will be appreciated.

IZ

Addendum: At no time is it anticipated or expected that Alternate members will be voting on anything before the Council

Heroldyn
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:59:00 - [2]
 

imo they should take part in the discussion but not be able to cast votes

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:02:00 - [3]
 

No they should not take part in the meeting discussions unless a member is absent and they are taking their place. They should have access to the meetings however in case someone needs to leave for any reason. But allowing them into the discussion simply drags down a discussion already burdened by time and Jade Constantine.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:16:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 28/05/2008 21:16:11
Originally by: Goumindong
But allowing them into the discussion simply drags down a discussion already burdened by time and Jade Constantine Darius JOHNSON.


There, fixed it for you Razz

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:20:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 21:22:09
(miss-post when meant to edit original re no question of them voting)

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:22:00 - [6]
 

Actually, they are automatically invited to every meeting - quorum is 7 of the 14, for example, and their desired minimum at the meeting is a full 9. From the sounds of it, it's the top 9 people at the meeting who get votes, so if one of the proper members isn't there, then Tusko actually gets a vote. Two down, and so does OZ, and so on. See the CSM founding document, page 15-16. They *do* get to attend the discussions, and they *do* get votes - you don't actually have a choice in the matter as it stands now.

Also, the odds of alternates getting kept on the council for years is negligible - once an alternate participates in a meeting, the term of office counts as one of their two. In other words, realistically speaking, all 14 of you will be getting your card punched for this CSM period, unless the top 9 have better attendance habits than any other board I've ever seen.

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:45:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 22:48:52
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Actually, they are automatically invited to every meeting - quorum is 7 of the 14, for example, and their desired minimum at the meeting is a full 9. From the sounds of it, it's the top 9 people at the meeting who get votes, so if one of the proper members isn't there, then Tusko actually gets a vote. Two down, and so does OZ, and so on. See the CSM founding document, page 15-16. They *do* get to attend the discussions, and they *do* get votes - you don't actually have a choice in the matter as it stands now.


Actually, the CCP-produced document you link to is unclear / self-conflicting. I quote: "Candidates who finish in positions 10 through 14 in the vote tally will win Alternate positions with the CSM. The alternate pool is only used when an elected council member voluntarily steps down, is removed from office because of a EULA infraction, or cannot attend the council meeting, whether that is during a regular online meeting or in Iceland." (my emphasis).

This would clearly suggest that an *original* elected Council member (ie one of the nine) must lose their seat *before* an alternate can be involved. It then carries on "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination of Alternatives and Representatives—are present." and "An Alternate can be voted multiple times as an Alternate, yet once he or she has participated in one Council meeting, that Alternate is considered having served one term; should the Alternate only sit one meeting or all the meetings, both scenarios are considered to be a full term as an elected Representative and thus count towards the total terms of two."

I believe the fault / problem here lies in that where the text suggests that an "Alternate" is becoming a full member by replacing a "Representative" the terminology is treating them under their former title, not their effective new one (and so not differentiating between Alternates-who-have-become-full-members and those who have not). It is clear that all five of them are not automatically invited to all meetings and appears (to me, ymmv) that they only attend if someone else has been removed.

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Also, the odds of alternates getting kept on the council for years is negligible - once an alternate participates in a meeting, the term of office counts as one of their two. In other words, realistically speaking, all 14 of you will be getting your card punched for this CSM period, unless the top 9 have better attendance habits than any other board I've ever seen.


For numbers 10 through 15 to 'get their card punched' (lol) would mean that five of the existing nine Council members would have to have resigned or been ejected.

As you can see, the terminology in the PDF isn't clear, indeed although "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination
of Alternatives and Representatives—are present."
appears to say they can attend, the earlier-quoted "alternate pool is only used when an elected council member voluntarily steps down" suggests otherwise.

I would add that the Council members present at the first meeting do *not* consider that the alternate members then present have served a term, despite the statement that "yet once he or she has participated in one Council meeting, that Alternate is considered having served one term"

And yes, the CSM realise that the document and structure surrounding the CSM needs revision / clarification; you will see a number of suggestions brought forward for discussion during this session.

IZ


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:55:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 28/05/2008 22:57:34
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Actually, the CCP-produced document you link to is unclear / self-conflicting. I quote: "Candidates who finish in positions 10 through 14 in the vote tally will win Alternate positions with the CSM. The alternate pool is only used when an elected council member voluntarily steps down, is removed from office because of a EULA infraction, or cannot attend the council meeting, whether that is during a regular online meeting or in Iceland." (my emphasis). This would clearly suggest that an *original* elected Council member (ie one of the nine) must lose their seat *before* an alternate can be involved. It then carries on "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination of Alternatives and Representatives—are present." and "An Alternate can be voted multiple times as an Alternate, yet once he or she has participated in one Council meeting, that Alternate is considered having served one term; should the Alternate only sit one meeting or all the meetings, both scenarios are considered to be a full term as an elected Representative and thus count towards the total terms of two."

I believe the fault / problem here lies in that where the text suggests that an "Alternate" is becoming a full member by replacing a "Representative" the terminology is treating them under their former title, not their effective new one. It is clear that all five of them are not automatically invited to all meetings and appears (to me, ymmv) that they only attend if someone else has been removed.

For numbers 10 through 15 to 'get their card punched' (lol) would mean that five of the existing nine Council members would have to have resigned or been ejected.

As you can see, the terminology in the PDF isn't clear, indeed although "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination
of Alternatives and Representatives—are present."
appears to say they can attend, the earlier-quoted "alternate pool is only used when an elected council member voluntarily steps down" suggests otherwise.

I would add that the Council members present at the first meeting do *not* consider that the alternate members then present have served a term, despite teh statement that "yet once he or she has participated in one Council meeting, that Alternate is considered having served one term"

And yes, the CSM realise that the document and structure surrounding the CSM needs revision / clarification; you will see a number of suggestions brought forward for discussion during this session.

IZ


"The alternate pool is only used when an elected council member voluntarily steps down, is removed from office because of a EULA infraction, or cannot attend the council meeting" is what it says. Thus, if one of the 9 isn't at the meeting, an alternate(specifically, the next one in order) steps up to take their place. Promotion is meeting-by-meeting, and it doesn't require anyone to be permanently off the Council. Again, YMMV and IANAL, but to me it looks like they get invites automatically. If CCP hasn't NDA'd them, as you suggest earlier that they haven't, then I'd suggest that you tell them to get on that, since they're going to be in on all the meetings, including the one in Reykjavik if one of the 9 can't go. As for the way to parse "participating", I'd say it means as a voting member, though that's inferred from context and not explicitly stated.

On your last point though, we can definitely agree - I've seen a whole lot of legislation, rules of order, and constitutions in my time, and this isn't up to the standards of any of them. It's a PR document, and it's written as such - great for PR and announcing the CSM, absolutely lousy when it comes down to lawyering.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 23:06:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 28/05/2008 23:23:11

I look forward to this discussion on Saturday. And for what its worth I am strongly in favor of alternates being present at meetings in an non-voting role as the the default.


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.29 03:08:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 28/05/2008 23:23:11

I look forward to this discussion on Saturday. And for what its worth I am strongly in favor of alternates being present at meetings in an non-voting role as the the default.


Oh, I agree that's how it should work, and that's how you should make it work in future. It's just not how it does work right now.

Maor Raor
Posted - 2008.05.29 07:56:00 - [11]
 

I think alow them to attend All the meetings.

And alow them to make Statements to the council at meetings by prior arrangement only on a topic by topic basis. Unless they are called to stand in for a missing CSM in which case they have all the same rights as a normal CSM to blather on and derail the proccedings as much as they want.

I mean the Agenda is set ahead of time so if they feel strongly enough to want to say somthing they can let yall know ahead of time (24 hrs min i would guess) and be given the chance to speek.

The more oponions in the minites the better as far as CSM PR is concerned.

Requireing prior arrangment will stop these atendees to the meeting dragging the proccedings out any more than nessarrary but also make them feel usefull.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.29 19:15:00 - [12]
 

No. Alternates should be seen and not heard until such a time as they cease to be alternates and become a sitting member of the council. Discussions take long enough as is despite the efforts of the more responsible members, such as Ank and Jade, against the less responsible, notably Darius.

Regards,
Windjammer


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only