Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Of course I could vote one way and tell those whom I represent I voted another
I'm sorry but I think it should be open.
Sent from my iPhone
On 16/10/2009, at 20:48, "William Drake"
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
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?
On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
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.