Gather feedback on your content with community scoring - these ratings weight results in adaptive search. Through curation analytics, ratings are used to highlight pages in need of attention. Learn more on enabling these capabilities with MindTouch 2010.
I am wondering when I look at ours --we have the Purpose of oversight of six (6) committees and then assisting them with setting their agendas--The Committees listed (Where pray is Finance) put in a phrase--accepts from other committees or may be submitted...this seems to be enough. But I am thinking that to do our job--we would have to be (as members) reading all of these minutes--when they come out. I guess there is no getting around that--these committees certainly do not and should not report to us and there is no need for phrasing their TOR's to say send us the minutes--in that they are posted etc. But as I say--it puts a great deal responsibility to "stay on top" by knowing what the committees are doing at each meeting--
On self-governance--Jean's comment on Robert's Rules of Order may be correct---I recall I once possessed a 1919 edition. But I do believe there should be a uniform way of running meetings. I see most of the TORs have a quorum of 25% for discussion purposes and then a majority for voting--The Facilities/Environment group state th4e number five (5) as a quorum--and I can't tell how many folks are on that committee being it say faculty representatives for National---plural. But whatever--it's a small committee and 25% may be just two? So as for uniformity of 25% and a simple majority required--perhaps I am just bothered because I cannot figure out the number of folks in that group?
