SC meeeting transcript Feb 28

Announcements by the Dean of the Scientific Council

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

SC meeeting transcript Feb 28

Post by Callipygian »

Meeting was quorate with Delia, Lilith, Callipygian and Soro attending. To simplify reading this much text, the Dean's chat is highlighted in aqua to break up the blocks of text. Motions are highlighted in yellow.

Delia Lake: I call to order the meeting of the SC, Sunday, 28 February 2021 at 8:11 am
Delia Lake: thank you for coming today
[2021/02/28 08:12] Delia Lake: we have an agenda that I emailed and also is in the box behind me
[2021/02/28 08:12] Delia Lake: you should be able to get it from the box, Tan

[2021/02/28 08:12] Tanoujin Milestone: let it be a surprise, but thank you!
[2021/02/28 08:13] Delia Lake: We have many things to work on but for today I have put only 3 time constrained ones on our agenda
[2021/02/28 08:14] Delia Lake: please read the agenda. are there any changes? additions? you would like there?

[2021/02/28 08:14] Lilith Ivory: I am fine with it
[2021/02/28 08:15] Delia Lake: a move to accept the agenda?
[2021/02/28 08:15] Soro Dagostino: So move
[2021/02/28 08:16] Delia Lake: second?
[2021/02/28 08:16] Lilith Ivory: I second
[2021/02/28 08:16] Delia Lake: approve?
[2021/02/28 08:16] Callipygian Christensen: approve
[2021/02/28 08:16] Lilith Ivory: approve
[2021/02/28 08:16] Soro Dagostino: Aye

[2021/02/28 08:17] Delia Lake: the first item on the agenda is the Reform of the Land Use Commission Law
[2021/02/28 08:17] Delia Lake: This law was passed by the RA and changes the way the LUC operates in some ways
[2021/02/28 08:18] Soro Dagostino: Reading.
[2021/02/28 08:18] Delia Lake: the law is on this Forum thread. https://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?p=50122#p50122.
[2021/02/28 08:19] Delia Lake: There are a few areas of change that I believe we should be reviewing
[2021/02/28 08:21] Delia Lake: you all may have other areas in addition to the ones I have
[2021/02/28 08:21] Delia Lake: first for me is the purpose and mission stated in 1.C. says.
(C) The LUC is a public institution of the CDS, entrusted with public functions outlined in (B). It is directly supervised and controlled by the RA. Its powers and permissions are directly tied to public discussions in the CDS Discussion Forums and to the votes of the RA. The LUC shall process orders on behalf of the legislative and executive branches of the CDS. It thus shall be responsive to requests from the RA and the Chancellor, but may set its own agenda.
[2021/02/28 08:22] Delia Lake: The LUC is " directly supervised and controlled by the RA."
[2021/02/28 08:23] Delia Lake: which is fine and good
[2021/02/28 08:23] Delia Lake: later in the law it says that the RA appoints 1 of its members to the LUC
[2021/02/28 08:24] Delia Lake: that's 2. B. 2. One RA member appointed by the RA
[2021/02/28 08:24] Delia Lake: and also, 2. B. 4. 4. Two citizens in good standing appointed by the RA
[2021/02/28 08:25] Delia Lake: so all in all, the RA, the LUC's supervising body appoints 3 LUC members
[2021/02/28 08:25] Delia Lake: again, fine and good
[2021/02/28 08:26] Delia Lake: What was discussed in a previous RA meeting but not subsequently included in this revised law is that the membership in the LUC should be limited to only 1 sitting member of the RA
[2021/02/28 08:27] Delia Lake: that the RA should not appoint sitting members to the LUC

[2021/02/28 08:28] Tanoujin Milestone: /me raises hand
[2021/02/28 08:29] Delia Lake: although this has not been done this term, it seems that leaving this open to having 3 or even 5 members of the LUC be sitting RA members would make the LUC advsiory role non-functional, that the RA would then be supervising and advising itself
[2021/02/28 08:30] Delia Lake: I have a bit more, but yes, Tan. please do comment

[2021/02/28 08:31] Tanoujin Milestone: thank you - to be exact, "That the RA should not appoint a second sitting RA member on a Citizen or Guild ticket
[2021/02/28 08:32] Tanoujin Milestone: so according to your logic the RA could only send 2 Citzen/RA members and one Guild/RA member additioally
[2021/02/28 08:32] Tanoujin Milestone: which no one with common sense would do if not forced to
[2021/02/28 08:32] Tanoujin Milestone: I want to hint to Han's argument, that we have a lack of personell
[2021/02/28 08:33] Tanoujin Milestone: si excluding regulations are not clever in our situation
[2021/02/28 08:33] Tanoujin Milestone: one last point: if the LUC is to be controlled and supervised by the RA, it is not hindered by havin RA members in the LUC, it is the other way round
[2021/02/28 08:34] Tanoujin Milestone: the RA members could do their controlling and supervising directly, that seems not really to be a problem. Done
[2021/02/28 08:34] Tanoujin Milestone: and thank, you, Delia
[2021/02/28 08:35] Lilith Ivory: /me raises hand
[2021/02/28 08:35] Delia Lake: A few comments to your points here. First is that laws by their purpose exclude some activities and behaviors and encourage or even mandate others.
[2021/02/28 08:35] Delia Lake: yes, Lilith, please

[2021/02/28 08:35] Lilith Ivory: no, go ahead if you have more Delia
[2021/02/28 08:35] Callipygian Christensen: /me raises her hand also
[2021/02/28 08:37] Lilith Ivory: do yu have more comments you want to state first Delia?
[2021/02/28 08:37] Delia Lake: second, let me reemphasize that if it were that 5 of the 6 LUC members in the future were also sitting RA, not currently but not prevented in the future, having the LUC at all, having the RA in effect supervise and advise itself in effect would be purposeless.
[2021/02/28 08:38] Delia Lake: I have more, Lilith but please put in your thoughts, and then you also, Calli

[2021/02/28 08:38] Lilith Ivory: thank you Delia
[2021/02/28 08:38] Lilith Ivory: I fully agree with what you said Delia
[2021/02/28 08:39] Lilith Ivory: we also have to keep in mind that we are only talking about the right to vote in LUC meetings there
[2021/02/28 08:39] Lilith Ivory: any citizen including RA members will also be welcome to come to LUC meetings, join the discussion and offer their help
[2021/02/28 08:40] Lilith Ivory: also I noticed the potential of a conflict of interests this term when the RA was voting for qualified citizens to be sent to the LUC
[2021/02/28 08:40] Tanoujin Milestone: how so?
[2021/02/28 08:40] Lilith Ivory: it would be possible to vote against a qualified citizen who does not hold another office to give the seat to a fellow RA member instead
[2021/02/28 08:41] Lilith Ivory: thankfully this didn´t happen and I trust the current RA not to abuse its power like tis
[2021/02/28 08:41] Lilith Ivory: but
[2021/02/28 08:41] Lilith Ivory: we always have to look at the future where we might have less trustworthy members sitting in the RA
[2021/02/28 08:41] Lilith Ivory: done
[2021/02/28 08:41] Delia Lake: thank you Lil
[2021/02/28 08:41] Delia Lake: Calli?

[2021/02/28 08:42] Callipygian Christensen: thankyou
[2021/02/28 08:44] Callipygian Christensen: first, and adding to Lilith's voice - while we are very aware of the limited number of people who seeem to want to take active roles -byelections being our responsibility :( - we cannot view laws on a 'how it affects today' basis alone - we have to look at the longterm, does the law stand up well to a totally different makeup of people on the RA for xample
[2021/02/28 08:44] Tanoujin Milestone: /raises hand
[2021/02/28 08:44] Delia Lake: yes, Tan?
[2021/02/28 08:45] Callipygian Christensen: if the RA can place multiple members on the LUC any semblance of 'independant evaulation and review' of the areas the LUC addresses ecomes questionable
[2021/02/28 08:45] Tanoujin Milestone: after Calli has finished,:)
[2021/02/28 08:46] Callipygian Christensen: and while we can say well common sense says you don't put 4 or 5 RA members on the LUC, common sense isnt always in great supply.
[2021/02/28 08:46] Tanoujin Milestone: Hi Kyoko
[2021/02/28 08:46] Tanoujin Milestone: come close and take my hand
[2021/02/28 08:46] Callipygian Christensen: It's not the norm in any independent panel for those who are receiving the recommendations to be those creating the recommendations, as Delia pointed out.
[2021/02/28 08:46] Tanoujin Milestone: you dont have a valium with you evetually? :)
[2021/02/28 08:47] Callipygian Christensen: And finally, for now, the RA has the discretion to remove members of the LUC.
[2021/02/28 08:49] Callipygian Christensen: Having multiple RA members ON the LUC leaves an opening for a perception of 'if we dont like how you act/vote/etc while working with you on LUC, we have the ability to remove yo'
[2021/02/28 08:49] Callipygian Christensen: Hopefully I am being clear and done for the moment.
[2021/02/28 08:50] Tanoujin Milestone: :)
[2021/02/28 08:50] Lilith Ivory: /me waves hi to Kyoko
[2021/02/28 08:50] Kyoko Furse-Barzane (samara.barzane): /me waves back
[2021/02/28 08:50] Tanoujin Milestone: Delia?
[2021/02/28 08:52] Delia Lake: the potential for this stacking of the RA was not as easy an option in the previous version of the LUC law because that specified staggered terms on the LUC and this one does not
[2021/02/28 08:53] Soro Dagostino: Raises hand.
[2021/02/28 08:53] Delia Lake: SECTION III: MEMBERS

To be composed of six members whose aggregate expertise is composed of, but not limited to: terraforming, landscaping, building, texture creation and application. Such members are to be nominated: 1. Two citizens, by the CDS Artisans Guild, or by subsequent, approved, NGOs; 2. One citizen by the RA from its membership, each term and not subject to the rotation, appointed by the RA by simple majority. 3. One citizen from the Executive Branch, appointed by the Chancellor, and; 4. Two citizens appointed by RA members from the Citizenry-at-large, via a simple majority vote by the RA. Those nominated shall be confirmed by the Representative Assembly and become Members of the Commission. Such Membership shall be, after the initial seating, on a rotational basis, according to a plan formulated by the initial members and approved by the RA. A member may resign or be removed from office at the discretion of the RA upon the recommendation of their nominator. This resulting vacancy, or the
[2021/02/28 08:53] Delia Lake: vacancies due to end-of-term, shall be filled according to the legislated process, the new member(s) assuming the term of the member(s) replaced.
[2021/02/28 08:53] Delia Lake: yes Soro

[2021/02/28 08:54] Tanoujin Milestone: /me waits politely
[2021/02/28 08:54] Soro Dagostino: Reading, you may have answerd why?
[2021/02/28 08:54] Soro Dagostino: done.
[2021/02/28 08:54] Soro Dagostino: I see now. Thank you.
[2021/02/28 08:55] Delia Lake: Tan?
[2021/02/28 08:55] Tanoujin Milestone: thank you. I have two simple questions and maybe a remark
[2021/02/28 08:55] Tanoujin Milestone: 1. Do you think the LUC act is unconstutional?
[2021/02/28 08:55] MystiTool HUD 1.3.0-freebie: Entering chat range: emilia Avindar (19m)
[2021/02/28 08:56] Tanoujin Milestone: okay, since noone seems to answer...
[2021/02/28 08:56] Tanoujin Milestone: 2. Why didn't you rise your objections during the ongoing legislative discussions?
[2021/02/28 08:57] Soro Dagostino: ((Heh! "simple," she says"
[2021/02/28 08:57] Delia Lake: I was waiting for you to finish, Tan
[2021/02/28 08:57] Delia Lake: but I can answer

[2021/02/28 08:58] Tanoujin Milestone: and you see, Rosie, me and Almut, Kyoko, and i forgot who else, we spent months on this discussion
[2021/02/28 08:59] Delia Lake: to #1, I do not believe that the LUC is unconstitutional There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the RA from establishing Commissions
[2021/02/28 09:00] Delia Lake: to #2, I did raise this issue during a meeting of the RA before this law was passed

[2021/02/28 09:00] Tanoujin Milestone: you can not expect we work our arses off and say after enacting, ohhhh, that does not convince us.. So please do not just give it back for overhauling, make a constructive proposal wwe can discuss. Because otherrwsise i see that becoming very emotional
[2021/02/28 09:00] Delia Lake: I don't have that transcript open now but I could find it
[2021/02/28 09:00] Tanoujin Milestone: and now excuse me, I need to cool down a bit and do not want to disturb, because I am afraid you have a lot of work to do now
[2021/02/28 09:02] Delia Lake: I believe the additional text required to address this matter is very simple. A few additional words only
[2021/02/28 09:03] Delia Lake: 2. B. 2 now reads "One RA member appointed by the RA"
[2021/02/28 09:05] Delia Lake: something such as "One and only one RA member at a time will serve on the LUC. The RA appoints that member."
[2021/02/28 09:05] Delia Lake: Calli do you have a more simple way to say that?

[2021/02/28 09:07] Callipygian Christensen: thinking
[2021/02/28 09:08] Delia Lake: while you're thinking, I'm going to add another restriction. Since the LUC advises the Chancellor, the Chancellor should not be a member of the LUC
[2021/02/28 09:08] Delia Lake: so currently it is, "One citizen from the Executive Branch appointed by the Chancellor"

[2021/02/28 09:08] Callipygian Christensen: I think just adding the simple sentence, after #4 ' Only one sitting RA member will serve on the LUC at any given time.
[2021/02/28 09:09] Delia Lake: very good, Calli. thank you
[2021/02/28 09:09] Lilith Ivory: sounds good to me Calli
[2021/02/28 09:09] Lilith Ivory: and I also like Delias addition
[2021/02/28 09:09] Delia Lake: might we add a second sentence to that? The sitting Chancellor may not serve on the LUC
[2021/02/28 09:10] Kyoko Furse-Barzane (samara.barzane): LOL
[2021/02/28 09:10] Lilith Ivory: or "a sitting chancellor may not appoint her/himself
[2021/02/28 09:10] Callipygian Christensen: Probably should
[2021/02/28 09:10] Kyoko Furse-Barzane (samara.barzane): /me has enough meetings
[2021/02/28 09:12] Delia Lake: during that RA discussion, and Lil, you probably remember, it was raised that there should be a limit on the number of SC members on the LUC. However the SC has no supervisory role or advising regarding the LUC at all so in that respect SC members are no different than the rest of our citizenry
[2021/02/28 09:12] Lilith Ivory: I fully agree with this
[2021/02/28 09:12] Delia Lake: and the SC has no authority to appoint anyone to the LUC
[2021/02/28 09:13] Delia Lake: or remove anyone

[2021/02/28 09:13] Lilith Ivory: I believe the SC wasn´t mentioned in the old law as SC members were seen as normal citizens in this case
[2021/02/28 09:14] Delia Lake: so it is my opinion given the structure of the commission that as in the previous version of the LUC law, the SC is not mentioned at all
[2021/02/28 09:14] Delia Lake: correct, Lilith
[2021/02/28 09:15] Delia Lake: I don't want to take up a lot more time but I have 1 more issue with this LUC revision that I think we should address in returning it to the RA
[2021/02/28 09:15] Delia Lake: that is the law does not specify the duration of time for citizen comment
[2021/02/28 09:16] Delia Lake: What this revision says is "(B) The duration of comment periods in the CDS Forums is defined in a separate law by the RA."
[2021/02/28 09:17] Delia Lake: yet the only relevant law also does not specify time.
[2021/02/28 09:17] Delia Lake: Law CDSL 17-01 Citizen Notification Act does not address duration of comment periods regarding potential changes to the character and structure of the CDS Regions. By not specifying a time duration in the LUC, the RA is making it impossible for compliance
[2021/02/28 09:17] Delia Lake: in RA discussions they have said a 2 week comment period. if that is what they want they should put it in the law imo

[2021/02/28 09:18] Lilith Ivory: /me nods in agreement
[2021/02/28 09:18] Lilith Ivory: we need a timeframe so our work does not get delayed unnecessarily
[2021/02/28 09:20] Delia Lake: yes and also so that the comment time would not be only 1 day or less for major changes, again planning ahead to what future RA's might do
[2021/02/28 09:21] Delia Lake: do we have other comments regarding these 2 requested changes?

[2021/02/28 09:22] Lilith Ivory: I think the time frame should be added to the Law CDSL 17-01 Citizen Notification Act
[2021/02/28 09:22] Lilith Ivory: not to the LUC act
[2021/02/28 09:22] Soro Dagostino: So move
[2021/02/28 09:22] Delia Lake: you think there should be defined times in that law instead?
[2021/02/28 09:23] Lilith Ivory: yes and perhaps something in the LUC act that says: time for comments is xx days, like written in CDSL 17-01
[2021/02/28 09:24] Lilith Ivory: in better english of course :)
[2021/02/28 09:24] Delia Lake: so then we would make 2 different recommendations to the RA? ok. that makes sense
[2021/02/28 09:24] Callipygian Christensen: Including in 17-01 and then referring to that in the LUC act works for me
[2021/02/28 09:25] Callipygian Christensen: /me raises her hand with a final comment
[2021/02/28 09:25] Delia Lake: So as Dean, I should send to the LRA a note regarding the LUC revision.... yes, Calli, and I'll finish after you
[2021/02/28 09:27] Callipygian Christensen: thank you - and since this is not actually a constitutional issue, as Tan pointed out, the first part regarding RA members is a recommendation I think, not a requirement.
[2021/02/28 09:27] Callipygian Christensen: so..one thing I'd like to just have on the record here:
[2021/02/28 09:28] Delia Lake: hmmm ok
[2021/02/28 09:29] Delia Lake: so you are saying that this should be presented as a strong recommendation?

[2021/02/28 09:29] Callipygian Christensen: Tanoujin left, and it appeared was rather upset, along with this comment : '...you can not expect we work our arses off and say after enacting, ohhhh, that does not convince us.. So please do not just give it back for overhauling, make a constructive proposal wwe can discuss. Because otherrwsise i see that becoming very emotional ...'
[2021/02/28 09:30] Delia Lake: yes. and I did make this point we are discussing at a public meeting of the RA
[2021/02/28 09:30] Callipygian Christensen: It is in the RA transcripts and in the Forums, that Delia raised these concerns;
[2021/02/28 09:31] Callipygian Christensen: to say I can see it *becoming* emotional is ironic when something like this has been posted in the Forums:
[2021/02/28 09:32] Callipygian Christensen: "The motivation for this regulation is that there came up from a SC member that it would be impossible to have two RA members in the LUC due to old traditions and habits. I have the suspect that the actual subtext was: "I do not want a specific person in the LUC and hence I invent quickly an unwritten rule to make this attempt to candidate for the LUC somehow impossible, even immoral."
[2021/02/28 09:33] Callipygian Christensen: So let me be really clear: Members of the SC do NOT use their position or their comments to exclude people they don't like or want in positions. It's offensive to suggest that any one of us would.
[2021/02/28 09:34] Callipygian Christensen: So to finish this comment - the recommendation we are making is based on what was previously pointed out and is not in any way personal and dirercted at any citizen.
[2021/02/28 09:34] Callipygian Christensen: Done
[2021/02/28 09:35] Lilith Ivory: I could not agree more Calli
[2021/02/28 09:36] Delia Lake: 2 points here. 1 is as we said previously, we the SC make our recommendations and for the general and long-term good functioning of the CDS government in accord with the Consitution and founding documents, not in regard to or with any specific individual or individuals in mind....yes what you are saying, Calli
[2021/02/28 09:37] Delia Lake: in addition I want to inset into our transcript from Article I of the Constitution. Section 8 – Limits on the RA
No member of the RA may engage in what might be considered a conflict of interest such as accepting money or favors from individuals or special-interest groups.

[2021/02/28 09:37] Soro Dagostino: My choice was dismissed, long ago.
[2021/02/28 09:38] Delia Lake: so currying to any individual in regard to an appointment would be imo in violation of Section 8
[2021/02/28 09:40] Delia Lake: So, for the to-do as a result of this SC meeting, as Dean I should send a formal note to the LRA strongly requesting that the RA add to their LUC Revision, following after 2. B. #4 ' Only one sitting RA member will serve on the LUC at any given time. The sitting Chancellor may not serve on the LUC.

[2021/02/28 09:41] Lilith Ivory: /me raises her hand
[2021/02/28 09:42] Delia Lake: and, in the LUC act that says: time for comments is xx days, like written in CDSL 17-01, so that the RA should make that 17-01 revision as well. Yes?
[2021/02/28 09:42] Delia Lake: yes, Lil

[2021/02/28 09:43] Lilith Ivory: I wanted to add that for me it clearly is a conflict of interest if the RA appoints citizens as members for the LUC - which can be another RA member too
[2021/02/28 09:43] Lilith Ivory: done
[2021/02/28 09:43] Delia Lake: it could easily be interpreted that way, even though no monies change hands
[2021/02/28 09:44] Lilith Ivory: the personal interest of getting a seat in the LUC or wanting to have another RA member to have a seat in the LUC
[2021/02/28 09:44] Delia Lake: if I am to send a formal note, would someone please make that as a motion?
[2021/02/28 09:45] Lilith Ivory: I wonder if we should also post our recomendation on the forum somewhere
[2021/02/28 09:45] Callipygian Christensen: I move that Delia send a formal note to the LRA with the decisions and recommendations the SC reached today included.
[2021/02/28 09:46] Soro Dagostino: Second.

[2021/02/28 09:46] Delia Lake: all in favor?
[2021/02/28 09:46] Lilith Ivory: aye
[2021/02/28 09:46] Soro Dagostino: Nay.
[2021/02/28 09:50] Delia Lake: Calli? vote?
[2021/02/28 09:51] Callipygian Christensen: aye

[2021/02/28 09:51] Delia Lake: aye
[2021/02/28 09:51] Delia Lake: So I will send the note.
[2021/02/28 09:52] Delia Lake: very briefly #2 on the agenda, we have had some people try to register for the Forum that have names that are not known to us and not on the citizens or friends of the CDS lists
[2021/02/28 09:53] Delia Lake: in the past people had been required to send a notecard with their information and the request to join the Forum
[2021/02/28 09:53] Delia Lake: Calli, might you check to see if that is still in effect? and let us know? then we can put that on next month's meeting
[2021/02/28 09:54] Lilith Ivory: /me raises hand
[2021/02/28 09:54] Delia Lake: yes, Lil
[2021/02/28 09:54] Lilith Ivory: I have disabled registrations again for now as I think it makes us look bad if we have pending registration requests for month
[2021/02/28 09:54] Callipygian Christensen: Sure Delia
[2021/02/28 09:55] Lilith Ivory: but we should still decide what to do with the ones who are still pending
[2021/02/28 09:55] Lilith Ivory: done
[2021/02/28 09:55] Delia Lake: thank you, Calli
[2021/02/28 09:55] Callipygian Christensen: I am guessing someone left it in open register mode by mistake..easy enough to fix
[2021/02/28 09:55] Delia Lake: yes.
[2021/02/28 09:55] Lilith Ivory: I´ve locked it already
[2021/02/28 09:55] Callipygian Christensen: oh..then its done :) maybe time to circulate the ;how to register' notecard again
[2021/02/28 09:55] Delia Lake: yes I think so
[2021/02/28 09:56] Delia Lake: we don't want to leave registrants hanging and we don't want to register spammers

[2021/02/28 09:57] Lilith Ivory: Gwyn managed it to keep the "how to register" post visible on the forum for those who are not registered :)
[2021/02/28 09:58] Callipygian Christensen: Delia..perhaps an e-mail to them asking them to confirm they are of age and know the rules and then follow the usual if they respond?
[2021/02/28 09:58] Delia Lake: I think we should also resend a notecard. we have a number of recent citizens
[2021/02/28 09:58] Delia Lake: yes, I like that suggestion, Calli
[2021/02/28 09:58] Delia Lake: I can do that
[2021/02/28 09:59] Delia Lake: next month I'd like to put Forum moderation review on the agenda as well as review oof the process of petitioning the SC
[2021/02/28 10:00] Delia Lake: and the third item would be revisiting the laws regarding by-elections, including how many by-elections can be held for a seat within a single term
[2021/02/28 10:00] Delia Lake: would Sunday March 28 at 8 am work for you all for our next meeting?

[2021/02/28 10:01] Lilith Ivory: as far as I can see yes
[2021/02/28 10:01] Callipygian Christensen: I think so
[2021/02/28 10:01] Delia Lake: Soro?
[2021/02/28 10:01] Callipygian Christensen: unless miraculously we can suddenly travel and I head off to somewhere sunny :)
[2021/02/28 10:02] Lilith Ivory: oh my I wish
[2021/02/28 10:02] Delia Lake: lol, if that's the case please may I go in your suitcase?
[2021/02/28 10:03] Delia Lake: on that note I will schedule for March 28 and call this meeting to a close
[2021/02/28 10:03] Soro Dagostino: I'm good for the 28th.
[2021/02/28 10:03] Delia Lake: motion to Adjourn?
[2021/02/28 10:03] Lilith Ivory: so move
[2021/02/28 10:03] Soro Dagostino: So move.
[2021/02/28 10:04] Soro Dagostino: Second again.

[2021/02/28 10:04] Delia Lake: thank you everyone :)

Post Reply

Return to “Scientific Council Announcements”