[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[parminder]

Dear All

This is to draw your attention to an important matter.

The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, 
including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the 
latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms 
membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a 
charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ 
voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any 
charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a 
serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and 
procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed.

When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new 
coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue 
to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, 
Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility 
conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause 
confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter 
amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the 
voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, 
as is expressly required by the charter.

Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by 
having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately 
precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be 
ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able 
to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the 
special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote.

I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which 
too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, 
since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for 
voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of 
avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put 
some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote 
for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through 
participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would 
have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote.

  The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately 
preceding, but as a part of the same process of,  a charter amendment 
vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter 
requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. 
Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that 
it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot.

I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and 
propose a discussion on this issue.

Parminder



On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast 
> your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm 
> your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to 
> vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment.
>
> If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first 
> check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me 
> know.
>
> The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been 
> approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for 
> any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted.
>
> The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos 
> Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced 
> for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements.
>
> Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the 
> charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter 
> poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 
> 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night.
>
> The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan 
> Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first subscriber who 
> missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 
> August.  One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com 
> <mailto:emisa+ig at gmail.com> has an email address that is not 
> technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation
>
> -- 
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement 
> in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
> consumer rights around the world.
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100929/ceae9f07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t