SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Colleagues,

I am writing to formally object to the handling of the resolutions at the recent SRRT Action Council meeting and to state that what occurred constitutes a serious breach of democratic process within SRRT.

The resolutions were placed at the end of the agenda and reached only when approximately ten minutes remained. At that point, strict enforcement of Robert's Rules was invoked to justify non-consideration, even though the time constraint was a direct result of agenda construction. When I moved to extend the meeting briefly in order to allow Action Council to exercise its responsibility to deliberate on resolutions, that motion was sidelined in favor of deferring the resolutions to a proposed special meeting for "discussion."

No serious attention was given to the fact that such a meeting, as framed, would be unlikely to have quorum for voting, making it functionally incapable of resolving anything. That concern was immediately borne out when a different special meeting - focused on SRRT election issues - was approved, pre-empting any special meeting devoted to the resolutions. The cumulative result was that the resolutions were removed from Action Council consideration entirely, without discussion and without a vote.

Regardless of individual intentions, this sequence of decisions amounts to a procedural disenfranchisement. Agenda placement, rigid time enforcement at the point of consideration, and the displacement of a resolutions meeting by other business operate together as a mechanism for suppressing resolutions. This sets a deeply troubling precedent. If resolutions can be nullified through agenda management and procedural deferral, then Action Council's role as a deliberative and decision-making body is hollowed out.

Resolutions are not optional or ancillary business. They are a core means by which SRRT articulates its political positions, fulfills its mandate, and maintains accountability to its members. An Action Council that cannot or will not deliberate and vote on resolutions is failing in its fundamental responsibilities.

I am therefore demanding a corrective action, not a discussion about process. A special Action Council meeting must be scheduled explicitly for the purpose of discussing and voting on the resolutions, with adequate time allotted and with an expectation of quorum. This meeting must not be subordinated to or displaced by other special-meeting business. Anything less will confirm that the procedural outcome of the last meeting was accepted rather than remedied.

I expect a prompt response indicating how Action Council intends to restore a legitimate decision-making process around these resolutions. Absent such a response, the implications for SRRT's internal democracy will need to be addressed more broadly.

Mark Rosenzweig
SRRT AC liuason from IRTF