FPP: Membership Expansion Item:
1. Question or Issue:
Expansion of FPP membership/voting privileges
2. Any Prior FPP Action:
Introduction of idea at the February 2012 meeting
3. Discussion Points/Department Recommendation or Observations (if any)::
Instructions
1. Review the following statements for and against expansion of the voting
privileges.
2. Host a table or site dialogue on these questions:
a. Are there other statements that need to be added either for or against
the expansion of voting privileges?
b. Is there a desire at your table to expand membership/voting
privileges?
Statements For Expansion:
1.
Expanded participation, more involvement of districts, more members to
serve on committees. People come to meeting but are not necessarily
involved, if individuals knew they were going to vote perhaps they would
participate more.
2. There are people who come to the meeting all the time and they stay
aware of the issues. I think if you go, you should get a vote. The
distinction of guest and member is a bit misleading in that all it refers
to is who can and cannot vote. Everyone in the room feels free to
express their opinions and I believe it adds greatly to the
understanding of all what any particular item up for discussion can
mean in all its ramifications. Here, big and small schools offer their
perspectives. I’m from a small school, I’m not a CPA, so I appreciate it
when larger schools speak up and talk about GASB implications; it
helps me a lot. I also like speaking up for smaller schools and listening
to other smaller schools talk about their challenges. It’s the people in
the room who will have the greatest understanding of each issue and
can make the most educated vote.
3. Attendees are part of the process.
4. Unique perspectives may be introduced.
5. CDE would not have to worry about making sure they have a quorum
at the meeting (I don’t think this has been an issue for a while but
could become one in the future).
6. Attendance may increase if people felt they were able to vote on the
issues.
Statements Against Expansion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The current structure is very manageable number for voting members. At our
remote sites, discussions are held prior to members voting. This process
ensures that we have received input from all of our attendees.
I do not believe the membership should be expanded. There is consistency
and formality to having voting members as elected by their peers. The
discussions by all attendees are important and beneficial, but the changing of
the Chart of Accounts belongs to voting members. As long as there is a fair
representation of districts / BOCES across the state then I believe the current
process is appropriate.
If attendance were to decline, breadth of representation may become
unbalanced.
If those attending do not fully understand a topic that requires a vote and/or
do not have an opinion on a topic and yet do not refrain from voting, the
outcome could be different than it would have been otherwise.
A special interest group could impose its will on all.
The equal representation we have now may be lost.
The current makeup of the committee allows districts from all parts of
the State and districts of different sizes to have an equal voice. Unless
we are thinking about going to a consensus model for voting where all
participants need to agree or be neutral on an issue, I could see an
opportunity for a group with a special interest to impose their will on
everyone else.
4. FPP Action, Decision Made:
FPP Members need to
1. Consider input
2. Call for a motion to approve expansion or retain status quo
3. Voting members will vote on motion
5. Further Action/Research Needed/Table for Future Meeting:
6. Effective Date: