Re: [council] Point for Discussion
On 13 jul 2007, at 11.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle
My recommendation did not suggest that any constituency should change
their mode of operation. But in cases where a constituency has
established a position using what ever procedures they use, it seems
very clear to me that that constituency should not lose a vote if
their reps cannot attend.
I think that in fairness, the type of internal organizational
behavior a constituency implements should not have an effect on the
voting rights of councilors. I.e., while I favor the proxy approach
that was in effect when I joined the council, I have concerns about
an approach that would only give such 'proxy' rights to a
constituency that worked in one particular way.
Additionally, speaking as a nomcom appointee to council, I would hope
we, i.e., Nomcom appointees, would have the same proxy capability as
any other council member.
I also favor an approach that includes a prohibition against using a
proxy mechanism to avoid a required abstention based on a conflict of
interest. In this case, it might be necessary for proxies to apply
to specific pending votes and for the council member declaring a
proxy to specifically declare the absence of any conflict that would
force an abstention.