Request for Agenda Time

John Wilford

John Wilford

Well-known member
Mr. Chair, please consider this a formal request for time on the agenda at the February Meeting for the following motion.

Be it moved we amend the LPTexas Policy Manual by inserting the following section in 5.3 SLEC COMMUNICATION

5.3.3 Alternative Communication Channels
All written communication channels sponsored by the party for communication between SLEC, committees of SLEC, or committees of the convention shall be read only by the general membership unless otherwise specified by LPTexas governing documents or voted by 2/3rds of SLEC.

*This policy is explicitly not to be read to include the forwarding emails used for outside communication to those groups named above unless those become a primary communication channel in the future, as the Yahoo email list was before the forum was established.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

Would the committees be able to keep private working channels? Convention committee working on details of the convention before they can be made public like pricing, tickets, speakers and then the credentials committee posting people's info while they work to verify everything.
 
Kyle Russell said:
Would the committees be able to keep private working channels? Convention committee working on details of the convention before they can be made public like pricing, tickets, speakers and then the credentials committee posting people's info while they work to verify everything.
Click to expand...
So there are kind of two paths to them achieving this.
1.) This can be overridden in an instance by 2/3rds of SLEC so that it is on the table for any given exception.
2.) Since this is only a policy and not a bylaw I tried to keep it narrow and to things a policy should govern so, it's only setup to affect permissions for those channels created by the party for this purpose. It doesn't compel the committees to use those channels or prevent them from setting up their own channels or just texting each other.
So this is not so strong as a public requirement for a meeting like we have for SLEC but it is meant to be a step in that direction.
 
Jessi Cowart said:
I am generally supportive of this with the exception of the Credentials Committee channel.

In that channel, we often share sensitive delegate data and discuss credentialing issues that should not be public (or at least not public prematurely).
Click to expand...
I would personally support exorcising the 2/3rds override for the credentials channel for the reasons mentioned.
 
When you say "general membership" do you mean a particular member class as defined by the policy manual or the general public like we have this section of the forum setup?
 
Kyle Russell said:
When you say "general membership" do you mean a particular member class as defined by the policy manual or the general public like we have this section of the forum setup?
Click to expand...
My intention was membership of the party and I restricted it to that because I know even the most open places of Discord have certain membership restrictions for registration. It is meant to be a minimum requirement so anything viewable be general public would satisfy this requirement since our membership would be a subset of the public if that is easier and I am open to amending it to be in line with the language in Bylaws of SLEC IX. Forums of (viewable by the public) if that would make things easier.
 
John Wilford said:
It's the plain English meaning. Anything our assets support or create for those groups.
Click to expand...
Thanks John, I appreciate it. I will be making a "Request for Information" for a list of everything applicable, so that we can understand the impact of the proposed change. I haven't made up my mind on this motion yet, but I am generally in favor of creating a more professional work environment in areas of official communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top