Community Governance Consensus Based Governance RECOMMENDATIONS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright © 2008 Software Defined Radio Forum, Inc. All Rights Reserved SDR Forum Document Development Process.
Advertisements

Conference for FOOD PROTECTION Promoting Food Safety Through Collaboration.
Energy-Intensive Industrial Rates Workgroup Information Session Steve Bakkal Michigan Energy Office Michigan Economic Development Corporation March 24,
Community Governance Consensus Based Governance RECOMMENDATIONS.
Performance Auditing at PPS: Guidelines and Success Factors Richard C. Tracy District Performance Auditor April 16, 2007.
Proposal for Elections ISM-NVA – Spring Elections events Term for Present Board ends June 30, 2014 Need to elect new Board by June 20, 2014 to allow.
Texas Regional Entity Update Sam Jones Interim CEO and President Board of Directors July 18, 2006.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. 2 Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due.
STANDARDS OVERVIEW Wednesday, April 30, 2015 KAREN RECZEK, STANDARDS COORDINATION OFFICE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
MODULE B - PROCESS SUBMODULES B1.Organizational Structure B2.Standards Development: Roles and Responsibilities B3.Conformity Assessment: Roles and Responsibilities.
PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE PCORI Board of Governors Meeting Washington, DC September 24, 2012 Anne Beal, MD, MPH, Chief Operating Officer.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due to.
“Inspiring our students to reach their full potential.”
Commission Procedures The Evolution Presented to the California Fish and Game Commission by Commission Staff on February 11, 2015.
Project Operating Guide. Purpose of Projects To advance the mission of the organization To provide value to ICIS Members.
CAC Co-Chair Meeting June 16, 2016, 6:30-8:00 PM Boardroom 5050 Yonge Street June 16, 2016, 6:30-8:00 PM Boardroom 5050 Yonge Street.
Who Are We? A Forum of Stakeholders Who Come together to Develop Science-based Solutions.
Council of Chapters: Responsibilities and Purpose
TEXAS NODAL (ERCOT REVISIONS)
RESPONSIBILITIES & PROCEDURES
NMHIMSS Meet the Board & Committees May 26th, 2016
Getting More Involved with NFRC
Resolving Deadlocks in Comment Resolution
COCE Institutional Review Board Academic Spotlight
2017 Resolutions Committee New Member Training
PPIS TRAINING 2017.
School Council 101 Prepared by:
SCHOOL COMMUNITY COUNCILS Waivers and Exceptions
The Standards and Interoperability Forum
Grid Code What is the Standard Modification Process? Panel
UMCARES PLUS PRESENTATION
Voting Procedures Committee Report
Implementation Strategy July 2002
myProject Redesign: Status & Preview
Standards and Certification Training
The Standards Development Process
CA STATE COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORSROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCIND RESOLUTION NO AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RULES GOVERNING.
PPIS TRAINING 2017.
John F. Kennedy High School Annual General Assembly of Parents
TGn LB97 Frame Format Ad Hoc
Advisory Council of Instruction
ELE PROPOSED REGULATIONS and the LOOK ACT
CA STATE COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORSROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Boundary Review Committee Milton #10 Elementary School
RST processes Session 5 Presentation 2.
New Commissioners’ Meeting IFTA Amendments
TGn LB97 Frame Format Ad Hoc
Ward 10 School Council Presentation
SAC No Child Left Behind What are SAC Basics?.
Procedural review of initial WG ballot on P802.1CF
Greater Essex County District School Board
School Community Councils
Vince May Atlanta, Georgia July , 2010
Sponsor Ballot Comment Resolution
Supporting SEACs across the Province:
DASC Awards Proposal September 20, 2007.
AIKEN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT February 12, 2019
Board of Directors **Volunteer**
Policies, Procedures, and Best Practices IEEE AESS PANELS 2019 Prepared by the Technical Operations Committee Contents: Applying for Panel Approval Forming.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
INTERNATIONAL FUEL TAX AGREEMENT (IFTA)
Agenda and minutes TGn PHY ad hoc
Agenda and minutes TGn PHY ad hoc
Standards Development Process
Agenda and minutes TGn PSMP ad hoc
DASC Awards Proposal September 20, 2007.
Review of Protocols for ACI Reports
Position descriptions
EHT SG Agenda Date: Authors: March 2019 January 2019
Presentation transcript:

Community Governance Consensus Based Governance RECOMMENDATIONS

“DRAFT” Community Governance Submit governance suggestions to a volunteer subgroup Subgroup to prepare written procedures Submit for approval to the whole community via by Feb 2008 Approval requires at least 2/3 of community members

How do you become a Member? Complete application Submit to Chairs Chairs’ approval based on: Complete information Relevant profession / experience Chemical contaminants method needed Acceptance via Member data maintained by Chairs Member data available to other members Member data provided to AOAC Board of Directors annually

What are the duties of a Member? Accept voluntary consensus standards Follow AOAC policies & standards Actively participate Be open, transparent and truthful Consider all opinions Respond to communications Accept and complete assignments Abide by consensus-based decisions Stay on track and within mission Work with AOAC-appointed method experts Work with AOAC staff

How are Stakeholder Subgroups formed? Initially, Chairs will appoint Subgroups for known areas of interest. Subgroups will continue based on annual approval of ½+ of Community voting members

How are Stakeholder Subgroups formed? Chairs notified of a method need (survey, AOAC…) Method = Chemical Contaminant in Food Multiple stakeholders have similar needs 3+ stakeholder groups will support a method Fiscal and/or analytical support possible Chairs ask stakeholders to present proposal Stakeholders introduce topic to voting members Accepted by 1/2+ of Community voting members Chairs notify AOAC & stakeholders via

How are Subgroup Chairs appointed? Community Chairs appoint 1st Subgroup Chair Must be a Community & AOAC member Must be a Subgroup stakeholder Subgroup Chair recommends Subgroup Members Community Chairs approve Subgroup Members Subgroup members may recommend AOAC member as Subgroup Chair (2/3+ vote) Community Chairs approve new Subgroup Chair Chairs notify Community & AOAC of change

How to be a member of a Subgroup? Be a Community member Be a Stakeholder in Subgroup Topic Area Provide balance of background (international, industry, government, academia…) Submit request to Subgroup Chair Be recommended by Subgroup Chair Be accepted by Community Chairs Actively participate in the work of the Subgroup

Duties & responsibilities of Subgroups? Follow voluntary consensus standards Establish working structure Establish governance Identify and work with stakeholder sponsors Form balanced international group of industry, government, academia Recommend two Voting Members to Community

Duties & responsibilities of Subgroups? Prioritize most needed methods Define method performance criteria Call for methods Recommend method actions to Community Recommend method “experts” to AOAC Work with AOAC-appointed “experts” Develop & recommend validation protocols Member with vested interest recluse self Accept decisions of AOAC “experts”

How do Subgroups make decisions? Participate in discussions, studies, surveys… Share data, minutes, reports, etc with all subgroup members Try to achieve consensus Propose modifications, additions, compromises… Vote in-person, , written ballot… 100% approval preferred 2/3 minimum to approve Publish results on AOAC website

Who are Voting Members? Chairs of Community Two members from each Subgroup (recommended by Subgroup; approved by Chairs) 6 – 12 At-Large members of Community recommended by Chairs approved by 2/3 vote of Community May not out number subgroup voting members

What decisions are made by Voting Members? Community governance procedures Establishment of Subgroups Approve/disapprove recommendations of the Subgroups Approve/disapprove method protocols to AOAC OMB

How does Community make decisions? Receives recommendations as written or verbal reports Provides opportunity for comment from all community members Openly shares all communications Attempts to reach consensus Recommendations based on at least 2/3 approval of voting members