SPIF readers...

In our final current look at a part of our founding documents, we will look in
depth at the Committee structure outlined in the By-Laws.

Article II of the By-Laws outlines the composition of the Committe structure,
comprised of three committees, in addition to the Executive Committee: Finance,
SPIF Advisory, and Strategic Planning

Some key questions:

-> Do you understand the role of each of the committees - are the paramaters of
their duties clear?
-> Are there some committees which we should have created that aren't here?
-> Are the duties properly split across committees?

Please post your comments to the forum, or respond to this email to contact key
leaders responsible for developing the Constitution and By-Laws. Also, please
feel free to review the Constitution and By-Laws in their entirety -
respectively at http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/SPED_constitution and
http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/SPED_bylaws. Finally, feel very free to
contribute to discussions from previous days.

Thanks for your help!

The E-Democracy Constitution & By-Laws Authors and Reviewers:
Anne Carroll - Tim Erickson - Mike Fratto - Michelle Fure - John Mannillo - Bob
Spaulding - Charlie Swope - Mike Wassenaar

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

B Y - L A W S

ARTICLE II: COMMITTEES

- Section 1: Standing Committees. The following committees are established by
St. Paul E-Democracy, and the substantial purpose of each committee shall
continue until such time as the by-laws are amended to change the substance of
the committees.

I don't have a good feel for what kind of criteria we should use for
determining when a standing committee is appropriate, so this may not be an
appropriate idea, but I'll take a shot.

It seems like one of the most common problems in discussions originating on
the SPIF (and in the general community) is that people are rarely operating
off of the same base of quality information on topics. The current
discussion regarding the Penfield Towers project (along with the related
background topic of TIF), seems like good examples of this problem. Many of
the points people have made have had "?"s associated with them, because they
were unsure of the real facts about the project. In this case, we have
someone like Bob Spaulding who was close to the project, and has provided a
great deal of information via posts. But if some miscreant (hi) hadn't
prodded the discussion in the first place, that information would never have
made it onto the table.

Is there a need for a standing committee to proactively monitor and research
current planning activities around St. Paul, updating the Wiki as often as
possible so that it could be used as a reference in discussions and
decision-making?

I realize this kind of activity is on a somewhat larger scale than the
current ones proposed, and it would require a lot of work / organization.
But it seems like it's always very late in a discussion before everyone has
the facts, and at that point a lot of emotions have been stirred up by
mistakes or misunderstandings.

An argument against this type of standing committee would be that it could
be addressed by various ad-hoc committees or task forces. However, someone
needs to actively decide when and if one of those should be assembled, and
things could easily slip through the cracks. Maybe the role of the standing
committee could simply be to actively identify and research new projects,
creating separate task forces when necessary to tackle larger subjects.

Another argument could be that there are already plenty of sources of
information available. However, in some cases it is extremely difficult for
the average person to glean accurate information from those sources, or even
know the sources exist. A smaller role for the standing committee could
simply be to identify all of those sources and provide summaries or digests
of what is currently going on, so that people could do their own research if
an interesting topic arises.

Anyway, just a thought... Democracy always seems to work best when people
are educated on the subject they're debating/voting on.

Jim Ivey
Downtown St. Paul

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: St.Paul Team [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:12 AM
To: SPIF
Subject: [SPIF] SPED: Feedback - Committee Article of the By-Laws

SPIF readers...

In our final current look at a part of our founding documents, we will look
in depth at the Committee structure outlined in the By-Laws.

Article II of the By-Laws outlines the composition of the Committe
structure, comprised of three committees, in addition to the Executive
Committee: Finance, SPIF Advisory, and Strategic Planning

Some key questions:

-> Do you understand the role of each of the committees - are the paramaters
of their duties clear?
-> Are there some committees which we should have created that aren't here?
-> Are the duties properly split across committees?

Please post your comments to the forum, or respond to this email to contact
key leaders responsible for developing the Constitution and By-Laws. Also,
please feel free to review the Constitution and By-Laws in their entirety -
respectively at http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/SPED_constitution and
http://www.e-democracy.org/wiki/SPED_bylaws. Finally, feel very free to
contribute to discussions from previous days.

Thanks for your help!

The E-Democracy Constitution & By-Laws Authors and Reviewers:
Anne Carroll - Tim Erickson - Mike Fratto - Michelle Fure - John Mannillo -
Bob Spaulding - Charlie Swope - Mike Wassenaar

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

B Y - L A W S

ARTICLE II: COMMITTEES

- Section 1: Standing Committees. The following committees are established
by St. Paul E-Democracy, and the substantial purpose of each committee shall
continue until such time as the by-laws are amended to change the substance
of the committees.
--- Section 1a: Finance Committee. This committee is responsible for
fundraising and fiscal policies. Members are appointed annually by the
Executive Committee and the Treasurer serves as chair.
--- Section 1b: SPIF Advisory Committee. This committee serves as the
advisory group for the St. Paul Issues Forum and the Forum Manager, and
rules on appeals to disciplinary actions taken by the Forum Manager. Members
are appointed annually by the Executive Committee and the committee reports
to the Executive Committee as required.
--- Section 1c: Strategic Planning Committee. This committee proposes short-
and long-term goals for the organization. They report to the Executive
Committee and prepare monitoring reports for Executive Committee review
several times a year. Members are appointed annually by the Executive
Committee.

- Section 2: Ad Hoc Committees and Task Forces. Ad Hoc Committees or Task
Forces may be appointed as needed by the Executive Committee.

St. Paul Team
All, St. Paul
More info: http://forums.e-democracy.org/stpaul/contacts/stpaulteam

- - - - - - - - - - -
To leave St. Paul Issues Forum,
email stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org with "unsubscribe" as the subject

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/topic/80804

For digest or to update bio options (must log-in):
http://forums.e-democracy.org/stpaul/groups/stpaul-issues/

Citizens Guide to St. Paul
http://e-democracy.org/wiki/Citizens_Guide_to_St._Paul

Hosted by http://e-democracy.org
- - - - - - - - - - -

>I don't have a good feel for what kind of criteria we should use for
>determining when a standing committee is appropriate, so this may not be an
>appropriate idea, but I'll take a shot.
>.......
>I realize this kind of activity is on a somewhat larger scale than the
>current ones proposed, and it would require a lot of work / organization.

For those who didn't see it - Jim Ivey goes on to suggest a kind of
standing committee that might watch out for upcoming issues (for
example development issues) and help provide some background
information in the forum to inform our discussions.

Actually, this is exactly the kind of thing that we would like to
make possible, by formalizing the organization of St. Paul
E-Democracy as a chapter of E-Democracy.Org.

Right now, we're something of a rag-tag bunch of volunteers without
much formal structure (mind you, a very high quality bunch of
volunteers).

We hope that by forming a chapter, we'll be better positioned to
manage volunteers, raise money for expenses, and hold ourselves
accountable to our mission, if we engage in ambitious projects like
the one Jim Ivey suggests.

There are a number of ideas on the table, that we hope will get
pushed forward by forming a chapter. Here is a sample, I'll try to
set up a WIKI page with even more ideas (that others can add to):

1) Resuming our weekly or daily press summaries on
St. Paul Issues.

2) Systematic outreach effort to recruit NEW voices
to SPIF that aren't often heard in St. Paul policy
discussions.

3) Collaborating with other groups to create
connections between our online forums and the
face to face events that are already happening.
- Webcasting events
- Posting notes on events and meetings in the forum
- Accepting testimony in the forum and bringing it
to "live" hearings or meetings.

4) Making a more systematic effort to build and
publicize the Citizens Guide to St. Paul (WIKI).

5) Periodic online conversations with city and
community leaders/officials.

6) What other ideas do you have.......

Best wishes,

Rest of post

SPED: Feedback - Committee Article of the By-Laws

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!