Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 13 jul 2007, at 11.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle  
> this.
> 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  
> one of
> 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.

a.