Elections, Accountability, and Education

[John Poelstra]

inode0 said the following on 03/13/2009 07:14 AM Pacific Time:

<cut>

Disclaimer: I take the notes for the board meetings.  I am not a board 
member and I do not participate in the discussions.

> Comparing these 40 minutes with the information I receive by reading
> the minutes of the private board meetings I'd like to make two
> observations. First, John does a great job summarizing the discussion
> that took place in the minutes but that summary rarely includes who
> said what. That is still quite valuable and helps educate the reader
> of the minutes about the nuances of the issue and the board's
> collective thinking about the problem. Accountability isn't something
> we can hold the board collectively responsible for though since we
> don't vote for the board collectively. Who said what is critical to
> our understanding of each individual member of the board and to our
> ability to hold them accountable in subsequent elections. (In case
> this "accountability" theme sounds negative I want to be clear
> everyone understands that it isn't negative. It is more likely by
> increasing my awareness of the individual participation of board
> members that I will say this member is great, I want to vote *for* him
> next time.)

I appreciate your appreciation :)

Anyone that has taken notes for a meeting knows that really well written 
notes can take a long time to do even when the final products doesn't 
look like it.  In the past it has not been unusual to spend the same 
amount of time writing the notes after the meeting as the meeting 
itself.  So two hours can easily evaporate from a work day just for one 
meeting.  I can't imagine how much time it would take to transcribe the 
view points of nine different people as they engage in vigorous debate. 
  While this might provide value for some issues I don't think it is 
sustainable or provides a very good ROI on the use of time.

I think I see what you are getting at here and I think it is reasonable. 
  It sounds like you want to know that your elected representative did 
what you elected them to do.  One idea I have here would be listing the 
board member that sponsored or brought up a certain topic for discussion 
or decision.  Over time this might provide an indication of board member 
involvement in driving different issues?

> My second observation about the minutes are that board decisions are
> announced collectively. When the decision is unanimous it seems to be
> expressed in the minutes as something like "the board unanimously
> decided X." I can only presume that when the decision omits any
> mention of unanimity that there was some dissent among board members
> although I am not given any sense of either who dissented or to what
> degree the board was in disagreement. The public votes cast in the
> first 40 minutes of the last public meeting stand in stark contrast to
> this. I know exactly who voted and how they voted as well as knowing
> the collective vote of the board as a whole. Having elected officials
> generally cast their votes in public seems natural to me, promotes
> individual accountability to the voter, and doesn't stand at odds with
> our project's very public stated goal of doing its business in an open
> and transparent manner.

An interesting question here would be ask the board exactly what their 
decision making style is and which style they apply to which types of 
decisions.  A "majority vote" is NOT "consensus".  It is a majority 
vote.  My observation is that the board usually seeks to reach a 
consensus and when they cannot turn to a vote.

Consensus as defined in class I recently took is: "The entire group 
*owns* and *support* the decision".  This is not the same as a majority 
vote where the "yes" votes win and the motion passes.

I wonder if the board would consider it reasonable to record the "yes" 
and "no" votes by member when the vote is not unanimous? I also do not 
think that someone should be able to abstain (which I think is more an 
indication of lack of resolve or ambivalence).  If we elect people to 
make hard decisions they should do so... not ride the middle or "decide 
not to decide".


> I do understand that there are costs associated with doing more of the
> business of the board in public. I understand transcribing and
> summarizing business done on conference calls is difficult and
> unpleasant work. I understand not all board business can be done in
> public.

At what point is the cost too high? My own measure is the amount of time 
to create the minutes exceeds the length of the meeting.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions and suggestions.
John