<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September
I mean to say:
Responding only on the procedural issue and _NOT_ on the substance of
the travel policy, the question of how one makes decisions and how one
gauges need if that is the chosen criterion.
Although that may have been obvious.
a.
On 4 Sep 2008, at 19:06, Avri Doria wrote:
On 4 Sep 2008, at 14:51, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to
receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be
eligible to vote on that motion.
Responding only on the procedural issue and on the substance of the
travel policy, the question of how one makes decisions and how one
gauges need if that is the chosen criterion.
The GNSO council was instructed to make a decision. I do not now of
any way for the council to make a decision without voting. And it
would be equally strange to ask those who did not receive any funds,
especially if we had been in the situation of having picked some
over others. It seems to me that the council was voting on an
entire solution which included some council member's travel
allocation. No council member was actually voting on their inclusion
on the list, but was rather voting on a package that contained
names, possibly their own, as had been recommended by their
constituency as well as other measures - similar to a parliament
voting on a pay raise or allocations for office expenses. In this
case, we found a way to fund everyone who had, though the process,
been proposed by their constituency - no discrimination between
people was necessary at the council level.
It is obvious that we need to come up with some other method for the
future, especially as we will be operating in the bi-cameral mode
the next time around. In this case, given the press of time, I
proposed a one time methodology so that we could respond to the
situation as required. As there were no objections at the time the
process was suggested, we followed through with it.
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|