Thanks, Dee,
I think the issue that Patrick raised will be discussed at our meeting
today. Seems to me there are two different issues involved:
1) Patrick addresses the percentage ("up to 40%") in terms of whether
the Member Section uses the resources it has in a timely way. Is there a
policy statement somewhere that would govern that situation? I know
we've always been cognizant of the need to use the resources in a timely
way, but sometimes a planned expenditure (e.g., consultant help for
implementers this year was offered but hasn't yet been requested)
doesn't happen as planned. There might be issues about whether there's
an expenditure plan that's approved or actual expenditures made and, if
funds are to be returned, there should be rules and milestones about
that - in my humble opinion. I don't even want to begin to get involved
in making proposals about that myself! Perhaps OASIS already has ample
rules about such stuff and I'm just not familiar with them.
2) The thought I had when I read "40%" in the original draft was that
some companies might join more than one Member Section and contribute to
both. I wouldn't think that OASIS would want 80% of the company's dues
allotted for that, leaving funding for OASIS at 20%. What if they joined
a third Member Section? 120%? So...the language about "Up to 40%" makes
sense to me, assuming that a different percentage might be negotiated
for a company (or individual member) joining multiple member sections.
If OASIS expects that at least 60% of a member's dues go to the OASIS
general fund, there would need to be a way to handle multiple Member
Section memberships involving sharing member dues. (And there could be
many ways to divide up the 40% - by member choice, proportionately-50/50
or 33/33/33, etc. - and if choice is involved, who decides?)
Apart from these items, I wonder whether we need to insert language
about our "consensus method" for decision-making (including something
about when we switch to majority rule to overcome an impasse).
Personally, I'd also like to break the "3 or 4 at-large" positions issue
from the need to have an odd number on the Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee could, before each at-large election, decide whether
3 or 4 positions are needed, whatever the reason. How are you about
modifying that part of the ROP?
Regards,
Roger
Roger Winters
Program and Project Manager
and
Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
Coordinator
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, WA 98104
V: (206) 296-7838
F: (206) 296-0906
