SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Not sure what is offlist about sending it to the list.

but the NPOC letter states:

> In summary, we respectfully request that Board promptly move forward with a review and consideration of this Petition under the existing Board approved process. The NPOC’s proposed charter was written in light of the Operations Steering Committee’s new requirements for Constituencies and Stakeholders Groups. We also understand the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee is working with NCSG leadership to draft its new charter and have read the most recent version. The NPOC Charter was drafted to acknowledge its membership within the NCSG and subject to its requirements, which would include any changes to the NCSG charter. We believe reviewing the merits of the Petition and approving a new Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency is not at odds with the Board’s contemporaneous review of the NCSG charter.

So they are both asking for approval now  and indicating that if they are approved and the NCSG charter is approved, they are of course ready to live with the requirement of the NCSG charter.

As Amber stated, she does not expect that the board will act quickly on our charter, and they don't want to wait.

Now, how the board would deal with that and the issue of seat assignment before having approved the NCSG charter, is a conundrum.

I am going to keep pushing on the Board to deal with our charter before they deal with any constituency, but I can certainly understand someone believing that waiting for the Board to finalize our charter is somewhat akin to waiting for Godot.  I wish they had done otherwise and had thrown their lot in with the rest of us and had accepted our offer last June of becoming a candidate constituency (ok were still calling it constituency/interest-group) in the context of the NCSG charter with observer seats on the EC, PC, FC, but i also understand why they took a different solution. Unfortunately, that has put us in a pickle.



a.



On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Off list
>  
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair
> 
>  
> Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)
> 
> When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the Board)
> 
> Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc
> 
> That would be incorrect.
> If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by our rules on voting, Councillors, etc.
> But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are not applying under those rules.
>  
> So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved, we really have no idea how NCSG works.
> And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos.
> No way around it: Debbie and Amber’s move was untimely and not constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way they’ve done it creates a mess.