Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again Philip,

At the distinct risk of belaboring the point, I don't think something  
so fundamental to our direction for the period ahead can be diminished  
as a mere administrative task.  We are not voting on who will change  
the toner in the photocopier, so sotto voce isn't going to fly.   
People are going to take note of who we elect and how we conduct  
ourselves.  And while I understand the problem of bruised egos, we all  
recognize that it's just business and we represent different  
constituencies and priorities.  I sort of suspect that you wouldn't  
vote for me for dog catcher, but I've enjoyed working with you  
anyway.  This is not about us, it's about the institution and its  
profile in the wider environment.
I'm glad to hear from Avri that irrespective of the outcome of the  
vote on the vote there is no limitation on a councilor's ability to  
publicly declare his or her vote.  So in the event of closure, some of  
us will make ours known and others can do and explain as they like.
Do I need to check with legal counsel on this?

Best,

Bill


On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Bill,
> policy votes should rightly be driven by constituency/SG direction and
> transparency of the vote is healthy.
>
> The vote for a chair of a body - an administrative task - is taken  
> by the
> members of that body and they should be free to vote without fear of  
> influence,
> or retribution by bruised egos etc. By all means seek the views of  
> others before
> voting but the choice of a chair should be ultimately the decision  
> of the
> individual member who will have to work with that chair.
>
> I say all this is the knowledge I have no vote in this matter - just  
> experience.
> Philip