20-12-2015, 02:33 PM
I’m sure they are excellent choices - it’s not that the choice is under question but rather that the choice was made/is being made by the wrong people.
Ian says
“I personally think that both the standards committee and the management committee have done their utmost best to get through what potentially could have been extremely difficult circumstances.”
This goes back to the AGM where members were presented with a fait accompli. The “difficult circumstances” that I noticed were that some of those at the meeting objected to names for the SC being foisted upon them at zero notice, as they had not had a chance to consider the nominations or to nominate their own candidates.
And ‘getting through’ these circumstances meant
1) the existing SC representative explaining (in answer to the question why the members were not invited to submit their own nominations) that the ‘right type of person’ had to be selected, a person of ‘sufficient integrity’ and that the existing SC were the right people to make this choice.
2) the acting chair (having curtailed discussion on several occasions by interrupting speakers) ending the debate on the democratic concerns by calling/waving for hands to go up in the air in support of the suggested candidates, as if the candidates themselves were the issue.
There seems no have been no democracy in the election process for the SC. The previous SC seemed to be filled largely by invitation of the chairman. While the integrity of choices is not under question, there is nevertheless possibly additional cause for concern if the SC are required to rule on serious matters relating to CS itself if CS officials and close connections are in reality picking it.
It might all be terribly difficult of course, and I’m sure willing candidates are in short supply - but SC can always try the members, you just never know.... :|
Cheers
Ian says
“I personally think that both the standards committee and the management committee have done their utmost best to get through what potentially could have been extremely difficult circumstances.”
This goes back to the AGM where members were presented with a fait accompli. The “difficult circumstances” that I noticed were that some of those at the meeting objected to names for the SC being foisted upon them at zero notice, as they had not had a chance to consider the nominations or to nominate their own candidates.
And ‘getting through’ these circumstances meant
1) the existing SC representative explaining (in answer to the question why the members were not invited to submit their own nominations) that the ‘right type of person’ had to be selected, a person of ‘sufficient integrity’ and that the existing SC were the right people to make this choice.
2) the acting chair (having curtailed discussion on several occasions by interrupting speakers) ending the debate on the democratic concerns by calling/waving for hands to go up in the air in support of the suggested candidates, as if the candidates themselves were the issue.
There seems no have been no democracy in the election process for the SC. The previous SC seemed to be filled largely by invitation of the chairman. While the integrity of choices is not under question, there is nevertheless possibly additional cause for concern if the SC are required to rule on serious matters relating to CS itself if CS officials and close connections are in reality picking it.
It might all be terribly difficult of course, and I’m sure willing candidates are in short supply - but SC can always try the members, you just never know.... :|
Cheers