[14732] in APO-L
Re: National convention committee system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John T Kohl)
Thu Jul 11 22:28:44 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:27:34 -0400
Reply-To: John T Kohl <jtkohl@MIT.EDU>
From: John T Kohl <jtkohl@MIT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: "[14731] in APO-L"
>>>>> "J" == Joseph M Fisher <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu> writes:
J> To put it briefly, the procedure seems biased toward the recommendation
J> of the committee... since we must pass *something*, and very likely will
J> not vote in the majority for any of the sites, we are inclined to pass
J> the recommendation by default. In my opinion this is a concern worth
J> looking into.
This is precisely the whole point of having a committee consider the
issue (indeed, any issue)! In a legislative body as big as an APO
national convention, it's simply too unwieldly to have the whole body
consider every proposal sent to the convention. The committees' jobs
are to consider proposals (each committee studies a set of related
proposals) and makes recommendations to the full convention floor. The
convention then can debate the issues--briefly--and make a decision on
the issue.
Now, in the particular case of Time and Place, things tend to get messy
since it's often an issue for which emotions and loyalties run high, and
many delegates don't want their chosen side to lose. (Likewise with
other contentious issues). For less-contentious issues, e.g. service
program of emphasis, delegates are rarely as upset with committee
recommendations.
==John Kohl
Alpha Chi Alumni Assn prez, plus lots of other prior stuff
