This provides a way for delegates to vote remotely during Council meetings.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Greg Grahamsays
Technology allows delegates to see and hear the discussion, so, if representation is valued above filling hotel rooms, remote voting should be allowed.
The current issue with direct delegate voting is that it does not seem to be permitted THIS year. There was an approved RFA that permitted remote (direct) delegate voting in the regional caucuses only. This means, if I am correct, delegates can elect their RVP remotely but must be present in the room to elect President, Vice President or Secretary/Treasurer.
Somebody please correct me if I have something wrong.
0
Rickisays
You are correct; only delegates who attend Council in person may vote for the EC. That pulls a concern for meeting quorum into the picture this year. That is being discussed by the EC, and they will pass an emergency measure if they need to to make it work. But it is rather exclusive if they don’t find a way to include the delegates who would rather protect their health by staying home.
There is a great deal of interest around this IFC. An RFA is being developed to permit this.
There is an interesting point around the difference between allowing VOTING and allowing PARTICIPATION.
Allowing remote voting by, say, email or text is crude but effective and cheap. The infrastructure for participation in the discussion is less simple.
0
David Skolniksays
Granted it may be ‘less simple’, but is there anyone who knows or who can explain/summarize just how ‘less simple’ this would be?
0
Ericsays
David, I think the details will come out in the development but you can imagine that monitoring a Zoom feed for raised hands and integrating that into the line of people at a microphone and trying to keep things in order will be less simple than it is now with all participants in one room
0
David Skolniksays
Eric –
To begin, consider what the current role of Council is. According to By-laws, they :
a. Elect the officers of PTG, except Regional Vice Presidents, who shall be elected
in accordance with PTG caucus rules.
b. Elect committees as established elsewhere in these Bylaws.
c. Discuss in open forum the current issues of PTG with the PTG Board of
Directors.
d. Participate with the PTG Board of Directors in long range planning activities.
As it now stands, Virtual Delegates will be allowed to speak and vote at CAUCUS, but not at COUNCIL.
Other than perhaps the numbers, what’s the difference? Why are potential technical difficulties or questions of parliamentary protocol such easily conjured excuses for potentially denying the democratic rights of members? In the recent membership category revisions, we were SO concerned for the legal rights of non-RPT members… also about the legal liability. But now, we are prepared to deny such representation to whole groupings of members who, perhaps out of concern for health risks, are not able to provide the in-the-house delegate.
The concern you raise is two part: ability to speak, in turn vs. voting. The obstacles are not the same. It might be challenging, but not insurmountable to come up with some protocol that addressed the order of hand-raise as well as integrating the on-site and virtual. As a money person, you should be able to find out how much a system would actually cost to implement.
But VOTING is VOTING, whether at CAUCUS OR COUNCIL.
Technology allows delegates to see and hear the discussion, so, if representation is valued above filling hotel rooms, remote voting should be allowed.
The current issue with direct delegate voting is that it does not seem to be permitted THIS year. There was an approved RFA that permitted remote (direct) delegate voting in the regional caucuses only. This means, if I am correct, delegates can elect their RVP remotely but must be present in the room to elect President, Vice President or Secretary/Treasurer.
Somebody please correct me if I have something wrong.
You are correct; only delegates who attend Council in person may vote for the EC. That pulls a concern for meeting quorum into the picture this year. That is being discussed by the EC, and they will pass an emergency measure if they need to to make it work. But it is rather exclusive if they don’t find a way to include the delegates who would rather protect their health by staying home.
There is a great deal of interest around this IFC. An RFA is being developed to permit this.
There is an interesting point around the difference between allowing VOTING and allowing PARTICIPATION.
Allowing remote voting by, say, email or text is crude but effective and cheap. The infrastructure for participation in the discussion is less simple.
Granted it may be ‘less simple’, but is there anyone who knows or who can explain/summarize just how ‘less simple’ this would be?
David, I think the details will come out in the development but you can imagine that monitoring a Zoom feed for raised hands and integrating that into the line of people at a microphone and trying to keep things in order will be less simple than it is now with all participants in one room
Eric –
To begin, consider what the current role of Council is. According to By-laws, they :
a. Elect the officers of PTG, except Regional Vice Presidents, who shall be elected
in accordance with PTG caucus rules.
b. Elect committees as established elsewhere in these Bylaws.
c. Discuss in open forum the current issues of PTG with the PTG Board of
Directors.
d. Participate with the PTG Board of Directors in long range planning activities.
As it now stands, Virtual Delegates will be allowed to speak and vote at CAUCUS, but not at COUNCIL.
Other than perhaps the numbers, what’s the difference? Why are potential technical difficulties or questions of parliamentary protocol such easily conjured excuses for potentially denying the democratic rights of members? In the recent membership category revisions, we were SO concerned for the legal rights of non-RPT members… also about the legal liability. But now, we are prepared to deny such representation to whole groupings of members who, perhaps out of concern for health risks, are not able to provide the in-the-house delegate.
The concern you raise is two part: ability to speak, in turn vs. voting. The obstacles are not the same. It might be challenging, but not insurmountable to come up with some protocol that addressed the order of hand-raise as well as integrating the on-site and virtual. As a money person, you should be able to find out how much a system would actually cost to implement.
But VOTING is VOTING, whether at CAUCUS OR COUNCIL.