PERIODIC AUDIT OF PROGRESS
2. Meetings—
a. Have all meetings provided for in the plan been held according to
schedule?
b. Have accurate minutes been kept and have committee members,
individually or collectively, approved them?
¢. Have provisions as to manner of choosing and service of chairmen
and secretaries been duly observed?
d. Have provisions regarding quorums and the method of voting on
questions been properly observed? Have the jurisdiction and
authority of committees been properly recognized?
e. Have special meetings been called and held in accordance with pro-
visions laid down?
f. Have special committees been promptly appointed and put to work
when called for by the action of the council or standing com-
mittees?
3. Procedure—
a. Have matters presented for adjustment followed the course pre-
scribed?
b. Have written statements regarding questions at issue been duly pre-
pared and filed as prescribed?
¢. Has action on all questions been properly expedited?
d. Have decisions been sufficiently definite?
e. Has notice of decisions been properly conveyed to interested parties
or published, as required?
4. Discrimination—
a. Have there been grounds for suspicion that employee representatives
or others have been discriminated against in violation of guaran-
tees to the contrary?
b. Have all charges of discrimination been promptly heard in accordance
with provisions of the plan?
Many other matters of a somewhat similar character will occur
upon reading the plan whose operation is being observed. Where it is
found that the provisions laid down have not been followed, there
may be reason to question whether the plan has been well devised in
these particulars. Especially during the early stages of a plan’s
operation, possibilities for improvement in its procedure are likely to
become apparent.
ASCERTAINING THE ADEQUACY OF PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE
Adherence to the procedure defined by the plan should not be
regarded as conclusive proof of its adequacy, for slavish conformity
210
