Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
WAG members split over whether to review recent critique of range‑riding; concerns raised about process and fairness
Summary
A proposal to discuss a recent article questioning the efficacy of range‑riding prompted a heated exchange: some members said the article's ideas warrant discussion, others opposed reviewing a single piece without the author present and called the timing unusual and potentially unfair.
WAG member Shubh Bhattacharjee proposed adding discussion of a recent article about range‑riding to the next day's agenda. Several members said the article raises questions relevant to implementation and to the day's presentations on monitoring and deterrents; others said introducing a single article without the author or broader context was unusual and risked mischaracterizing individuals.
Scott Nielsen said the move felt inappropriate and described it as "a smear campaign against 1 guy," and several other members said dropping an article into the agenda on short notice was not consistent with prior practice. Lynn Okita and Amy Porter argued the article's themes reflect broader concerns about range‑riding effectiveness and suggested the group could extract relevant questions or invite the author rather than debate the piece directly. Amber Palmer proposed inviting the author to present if the group intends to scrutinize a single article.
Facilitator Corey Archer reminded attendees of meeting ground rules and asked WAG members to assume good intent while noting that the group should preserve processes for fair discussion. The facilitator said he would consult with Shubh on the best way to bring relevant concepts into the next day's agenda, such as summarizing the article's substantive questions or inviting the author.
