P&P conflict: Type 5 ESIP Partners cannot be both non-voting and voting

[relphj]

Mark Parsons
5:52 PM

Hi Mike and John, I'm writing to you as chairs of the Partnership and Governance committees. I discovered a discrepancy in the P&P and bylaws about Partners. P&P 1.2 states: "Type 5 ESIP Partners shall be non-voting." (Type 5 is Collaborative Data Networks) but [Bylaw 3.1.1]
(https://github.com/ESIPFed/Governance/blob/master/Bylaws/Article%2003%20Members/3.01%20Qualification%20and%20Classes%20of%20Membership.md) states "All members shall have the same voting rights." (members == partners). I don't know why Type 5's were denied voting rights, but they shouldn't be unless we change the Bylaws. It's easier to change the P&P.

Mike Mahoney
9:26 AM

...huh! That seems pretty clear to me. Agreed that type 5 shouldn't be denied voting rights given the bylaws. I'd support a change to the P&P for this

[BenGalewsky]

Mark suggests that we just delete the sentence that type fives can't vote

[BenGalewsky]

I this an issue because collaborative data networks are made up of ESIP members, so there is a bit of double counting?

[mikemahoney218-usgs]

The Partnership Committee met today (missing 1 member) and agreed that we should remove the restriction on Type 5 members voting. We additionally -- and perhaps this should be a second issue -- would be interested in suggesting that we prohibit a single person from serving as the voting representative for more than one member, to help mitigate the issue Ben mentions.

[kstocks]

As a person who currently represents two independent data facilities that are separate ESIP Type 1 member programs with sometimes different interests and perspectives, I'd like to discuss the representative vs member voting restriction separately.

[BenGalewsky]

We don't think double voting is a problem here, so let's make this change