26-08-2013, 03:35 PM
Thanks guys for the thoughtful posts. Most people seemed to use their proxies responsibly in the Andy M vote. The second half of this discussion has restored my faith and it would have been a pity if it had been shut down.
True Hugh, some of Steve’s points have been addressed but the fact that unaddressed ones like the handling of the meeting by the president were still being flung back at Steve grated on my pedantic brain eg the criticism of the chair was that it wasn’t a fair job, and the CS composition. Also Steve had to deal with some unreasonable flak, IMO.
I wasn’t meaning my criticism of one official to be stinging. I just thought the point should be acknowledged by those castigating others for their behaviour – however, many others have now acknowledged it.
Final word as I’ve said quite enough: though ‘bad behaviour’ does exist, it is often borne of frustration, and not every heated discussion should be dismissed because of the heat. I think we should remember that officials have more power and influence than ordinary members, and often find ways to evade or dodge a point, or even an entire issue. Members often have to shout, or exaggerate perhaps, in order to be heard. One has to use judgement of course; but if questions are held to an absolute standard of ‘behaviour’, then accountability suffers as it is no longer a level playing field. There would then be no need to answer members questions!
Does this actually happen? I’m moving on…
True Hugh, some of Steve’s points have been addressed but the fact that unaddressed ones like the handling of the meeting by the president were still being flung back at Steve grated on my pedantic brain eg the criticism of the chair was that it wasn’t a fair job, and the CS composition. Also Steve had to deal with some unreasonable flak, IMO.
I wasn’t meaning my criticism of one official to be stinging. I just thought the point should be acknowledged by those castigating others for their behaviour – however, many others have now acknowledged it.
Final word as I’ve said quite enough: though ‘bad behaviour’ does exist, it is often borne of frustration, and not every heated discussion should be dismissed because of the heat. I think we should remember that officials have more power and influence than ordinary members, and often find ways to evade or dodge a point, or even an entire issue. Members often have to shout, or exaggerate perhaps, in order to be heard. One has to use judgement of course; but if questions are held to an absolute standard of ‘behaviour’, then accountability suffers as it is no longer a level playing field. There would then be no need to answer members questions!
Does this actually happen? I’m moving on…