legalxml-sc — archive

[Roger Winters]

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 roger.winters@metrokc.gov