26-07-2015, 09:20 PM
Hi again Dick, just in response to your last post to me (and Derek). You say
“I wonder why you keep asking this question of me about how I prepared the minutes. If I ask you or anyone else to clarify something after the meeting in order to help me, why should your name be published?”
I don’t know why you wonder. Is it not obvious that it is greatly advantageous (probably +/-
) to one side of the discussion to be able to give input to the published minutes but not the other?
On your second point above, as what’s said at the meeting is public there is no obvious reason what is claimed afterwards to have been said should be private - while at the same time it is written into the minutes! What in your view is the difference between this and collusion?
I haven’t mentioned anything about whose responsibility the minutes are - yet you have given me this response three times. I can only repeat that you could perhaps just answer what’s being asked about their correctness.
But if you really insist on this line of ‘defence’, then I would point out that 'taking full responsibility’ implies a certain accountability – and not being so secretive about who actually wrote what you claim responsibility for would be a good start :-)
It makes little difference whether Derek retracts his point – he is correct in saying that proxy votes were not counted in the section on eligibility when my motion was run off versus Derek’s.
Again, if you wanted to be seen as impartial and responsible it would help if you would acknowedge this anomaly rather than call for its retraction (and not try to shoot all the messengers yourself, to coin a phrase).
Had the vote in the meeting not been unanimous, this discrepancy wouldn’t have come to light.
“Look on the bright side, you don't normally have to put up with me as minute secretary”.
The Dutch defence. Now that you mention it yourself, it is rather surprising to have a minute-taker who is so closely connected with management when such fundamental changes are on the table. You’ve just come out of a position in CS, and were Hamish’s first choice for the CWP in 2013, until this move was overruled by the floor.
This doesn’t reflect on you personally of course (no wounded gestures, please :-)) - the general reasoning is that people shouldn’t be put in a position where they have a conflict of interest, or of loyalties, as it can be difficult to meet both.
In general if you wish to come across as impartial it would help if you desisted from gesturing and questioning people’s motives as a first response to their perfectly legitimate questions.
Regards
Walter
“I wonder why you keep asking this question of me about how I prepared the minutes. If I ask you or anyone else to clarify something after the meeting in order to help me, why should your name be published?”
I don’t know why you wonder. Is it not obvious that it is greatly advantageous (probably +/-
) to one side of the discussion to be able to give input to the published minutes but not the other?On your second point above, as what’s said at the meeting is public there is no obvious reason what is claimed afterwards to have been said should be private - while at the same time it is written into the minutes! What in your view is the difference between this and collusion?
I haven’t mentioned anything about whose responsibility the minutes are - yet you have given me this response three times. I can only repeat that you could perhaps just answer what’s being asked about their correctness.
But if you really insist on this line of ‘defence’, then I would point out that 'taking full responsibility’ implies a certain accountability – and not being so secretive about who actually wrote what you claim responsibility for would be a good start :-)
It makes little difference whether Derek retracts his point – he is correct in saying that proxy votes were not counted in the section on eligibility when my motion was run off versus Derek’s.
Again, if you wanted to be seen as impartial and responsible it would help if you would acknowedge this anomaly rather than call for its retraction (and not try to shoot all the messengers yourself, to coin a phrase).
Had the vote in the meeting not been unanimous, this discrepancy wouldn’t have come to light.
“Look on the bright side, you don't normally have to put up with me as minute secretary”.
The Dutch defence
. Now that you mention it yourself, it is rather surprising to have a minute-taker who is so closely connected with management when such fundamental changes are on the table. You’ve just come out of a position in CS, and were Hamish’s first choice for the CWP in 2013, until this move was overruled by the floor. This doesn’t reflect on you personally of course (no wounded gestures, please :-)) - the general reasoning is that people shouldn’t be put in a position where they have a conflict of interest, or of loyalties, as it can be difficult to meet both.
In general if you wish to come across as impartial it would help if you desisted from gesturing and questioning people’s motives as a first response to their perfectly legitimate questions.
Regards
Walter