7. 2013-O Governors' Letters replaced...voting ledgers (McKim/Bond) - commentary only

[Michael von Keitz]

Should 2013-N pass, that Governors' Letters be replaced by quarterly voting ledgers.

[Pierre Dénommée]

What does that mean? Do we want to publish only the results of voting and not the Governors' discussion.

[Rob Clark]

I've talked to a couple exec members about this and my interpretation is that discussion would be visible (as would voting) during and after the meeting. Since voting and discussion would be visible, the GL's (which are fairly time consuming) would be redundant and would therefore be replaced by a much shorter summary of voting. This would save the secretary a lot of time; it makes sense to me.

[Pierre Dénommée]

If the discussions are accessible, this is a good thing.




I've talked to a couple exec members about this and my interpretation is that discussion would be visible (as would voting) during and after the meeting. Since voting and discussion would be visible, the GL's (which are fairly time consuming) would be redundant and would therefore be replaced by a much shorter summary of voting. This would save the secretary a lot of time; it makes sense to me.

[Lyle Craver]

The fly in the ointment is that there are some decisions where questions and answers on motions are probably NOT a good thing to publish - for instance questions on bids.

Similarly multi-choice questions where there are amendments (such as in this meeting) are tricky things to score - our policy has always been that we evaluate the result of the amendments first and based on the result count the vote of the amended or non-amended motion - we do not report the vote on the rejected hypothetical option.

I strongly dislike multi-choice voting options for this reason. From an administrative point of view they're a nightmare.