Cerin: Speaking of the jury pool, could we have the jury pool include all members over a certain age and time on the board, and then when they were notified that they were being shuffled in, they would have the option to decline? This might give us a larger pool than having it based on pro-active volunteering.
Imp: I agree with this. Not only a larger pool, but will offer ALL an opportunity to engage in the process. The offer is made to the next person on the list ... and if it is declined nothing is lost.
I am opposed to making all eligible members automatically part of the jury pool for a couple reasons:
1. When the last committee voted that membership in the admin pool should be voluntary, they simultaneously voted that membership in the jury pool should also be voluntary. That was nearly unanimous and I don't think we should overturn it.
2. The member does not have to be pro-active to join the pool. The Mayor can notify them when they become eligible and they can state then whether they are interested. That's how it's done for the admin pool - makes sense to do it the same way for the jury pool.
3. We just decided that mediators would be members of the jury pool, which means there has to be a list in the Bike Racks, which means we have to know in advance who's in the pool. The majority of members are going to decline rather than accept - for sure! - so listing everyone in the hopes that someone will say yes is really a waste of time, and ...
4. Time is very important, in my opinion. Remember that in some cases, a member has had their posting rights suspended while waiting for a Hearing. It's unfair to them to build in unnecessary delays.
So I think we're going to have to solicit members when they become eligible, and then list in the Jury Room and the Bike Racks the names of those who are willing. Juries and mediators would then be selected from among them.
Imp: the same people may be overlooked over and over
This will not happen if juries are selected in the order in which members enter the pool. That will undoubtedly be related to their join date, which is a reasonably neutral factor.
Cerin: maybe shuffle in the next nine members of the jury pool
That's exactly the number I was thinking of! But I was thinking that the member could reject two of them (one-third) and the seventh juror is an alternate - they would attend the case but not vote in the decision unless a regular juror had to leave or be removed.
Cerin: but is it difficult to get all the admins' input on something? Would it be problematic for all the admins to confer, with the majority opinion determining if a hearing is warranted?
Well, a majority of admins = 3. We can just say 3 instead of 2, which seems easier to me than requiring a vote on it.
But I really prefer 2 because it only takes 2 admins to convene a hearing for the removal of another admin (Article 3) and it seems odd to me that more admins would be required to consider disruptive behavior in the RP forum (for example) than to remove another admin from office.
Generally, I'm a great believe in building on what others have already done. In the Charter especially it will help to avoid contradictions.
Jn