Michigan Licensing And Regulatory Affairs

[bobandtorey]

Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) Leon,

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Review Panel reviewed the petitions, the supporting evidence, and comments from the public before each panel member rendered their vote. As a quorum of the review panel did not concur in the recommendations, the petitions were denied. 

Composition of the panel concurs with Administrative Rule 333.131, which states members of the review panel shall include, but not be limited to, the Michigan chief medical executive and seven appointed members of the advisory committee on pain and symptom management as described in MCL 333.16204a. The seven review panel members from the advisory committee on pain and symptom management shall include four licensed physicians and three non-physicians. 

Please be advised that as a governmental agency, LARA is prohibited from addressing specific legal or medical issues, concerns or requests raised by individuals. Thank you.

[t-pain]

so quorum means minimum number

so whats the minimum number that have to agree? 7 out of 7?

 

(4) A quorum of the review panel shall concur with the recommendation in order to be considered an
official recommendation of the panel. For the purposes of this subrule, a majority of the members
appointed and serving on the review panel constitutes a quorum.

 

so 5 out of 7 would be a majority.

[ozzrokk]

Thanx for posting Bob...... Do you know if this is new or the old bullsheit??????

[Celliach]

so quorum means minimum number

so whats the minimum number that have to agree? 7 out of 7?

 

(4) A quorum of the review panel shall concur with the recommendation in order to be considered an

official recommendation of the panel. For the purposes of this subrule, a majority of the members

appointed and serving on the review panel constitutes a quorum.

 

so 5 out of 7 would be a majority.

 

No, 4 out of 7 are needed for a quorum.  If less than 4 members are at the meeting, then they cannot speak for the whole group.

[Hayduke]

Actually, I can help on this discussion as I am on the panel.

 

There are two quorums that are being mixed up (and that is quite understandable), but, there is a Roberts Rules of Order comment on what makes up a quorum to have a meeting....

 

And there is a needed quorum of the eleven panel members necessary to pass a new condition on to Mr. Arwood (the LARA person who gets to make the final determination).

 

For the meeting to be held we need six panel members present.  To pass in the affirmative a new condition takes six favorable votes.

 

So if all eleven members are present you have a meeting quorum, and if six vote in favor you have a quorum for the vote being affirmed.

 

If you have six members present you have a meeting quorum, but it would take all six voting in the affirmative to recommend a new condition.  In other words if you had six present (thus a quorum for the meeting) and you got five yes votes on a new condition, the new condition would fail to have a "voting" quorum and would be considered D.O.A.

 

I hope that helps, but if you have questions or my post here is confusing and needs clarification.... forgive me, ask for further clarification....

[Dr. Bob]

I seem to recall the 'rewrote' the rules of the panel to require a positive vote of the majority of the total appointed to the panel to pass a condition.  This is different than the standard 'quorum' present with a majority of the present members voting in favor after the slight of hand they pulled with the original panel.

 

With 13 (I believe that is the number, but am using 13 for illustrative purposes only) appointed to the panel, under the standard Robert's Rules if 7 were present at the meeting a vote could be held and if 4 voted yes the measure would carry.  In the case of the first panel, only 7 of the members showed up for the vote, and as I recall the vote was 5-2.  In the REAL WORLD, both votes would pass.  I believe they didn't like the outcome so they said 7 of the 13 needed to vote yes, so all 7 that showed up would have to vote yes.  When folks started calling them on this, they changed the rules for this panel, requiring the majority of all members of the panel (7) to vote yes for the measure to pass.

 

First, if you are going to take a seat on the panel, show up.  You are there for the PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN- who are counting on you being there.  You need to get off your tail and go to Lansing and vote.  Second, when you do vote, Lara needs to follow the real rules, not their fantasy rules designed to make sure nothing is approved.  I and many others am not participating because they (Lara) haven't proven to me that the effort is worth it.  I applaud those that are participating.  I am angry enough that I don't think I could make a positive contribution right now, which is why I've not come.  I don't think it is in the best interests of the MMJ community for me to be there.

 

If you want serious input from all aspects of the community, show me (and others) that it is important enough to you on the panel to show up and do your job, and the process has integrity because Lara follows through and certifies the vote.

[Dr. Bob]

And thank you Hayduke for your service.  You showed up.  

 

Dr. Bob

Edited October 10, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Hayduke]

you show up yourself, my friend..... thank you.... for all you do....

[GregS]

I seem to recall the 'rewrote' the rules of the panel to require a positive vote of the majority of the total appointed to the panel to pass a condition.  This is different than the standard 'quorum' present with a majority of the present members voting in favor after the slight of hand they pulled with the original panel.

 

With 13 (I believe that is the number, but am using 13 for illustrative purposes only) appointed to the panel, under the standard Robert's Rules if 7 were present at the meeting a vote could be held and if 4 voted yes the measure would carry.  In the case of the first panel, only 7 of the members showed up for the vote, and as I recall the vote was 5-2.  In the REAL WORLD, both votes would pass.  I believe they didn't like the outcome so they said 7 of the 13 needed to vote yes, so all 7 that showed up would have to vote yes.  When folks started calling them on this, they changed the rules for this panel, requiring the majority of all members of the panel (7) to vote yes for the measure to pass.

 

First, if you are going to take a seat on the panel, show up.  You are there for the PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN- who are counting on you being there.  You need to get off your tail and go to Lansing and vote.  Second, when you do vote, Lara needs to follow the real rules, not their fantasy rules designed to make sure nothing is approved.  I and many others am not participating because they (Lara) haven't proven to me that the effort is worth it.  I applaud those that are participating.  I am angry enough that I don't think I could make a positive contribution right now, which is why I've not come.  I don't think it is in the best interests of the MMJ community for me to be there.

 

If you want serious input from all aspects of the community, show me (and others) that it is important enough to you on the panel to show up and do your job, and the process has integrity because Lara follows through and certifies the vote.

Too bad they turned you down. The Committee will take liberties with the rules if they are not watched closely. That is pretty common.

Edited October 10, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Too bad they turned you down. The Committee will take liberties with the rules if they are not watched closely. That is pretty common.

Turned me down?  I've never been on the panel.  Dave is the doc there for good reason.  He is better suited to tolerate the kind of things that go on there.  I have a rather low tolerance of ignorance and reefer madness dogma.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Turned me down?  I've never been on the panel.  Dave is the doc there for good reason.  He is better suited to tolerate the kind of things that go on there.  I have a rather low tolerance of ignorance and reefer madness dogma.

 

Dr. Bob

If you insist.

[Hayduke]

there are 11 members....

 

In the prior incarnation there were 13 members.  They follow Roberts Rules of Order, but LARA may change administrative rules and override Roberts.  This they did over a year ago.  

 

Ironically the House of Rep in Lansing does not follow Roberts and has the same quorum vote requirement (per Rep Irwin)....