[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Wed Sep 29 07:43:06 EDT 2010

Yes Parminder and Paul,

This is a clearly mentioned clause in the IGC Charter which has not
been requested for amendment until now as per my knowledge. There is a
clearly mentioned process for amendments as well that can be followed
in the near future for any possible improvements with IGC member
consensus but a process/thread should have been started prior to the
confusing election+survey and attempt to reach a decision over so many
issues in one go?

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
> The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only
> allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is
> that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture:
>
> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the
> letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility
> criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states
> that
>
> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will
> be deemed a member for amending the charter."
>
> Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder of
> letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this perspective.
> Parminder
>
>
>  One may
> monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is
> favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of
> the total electorate.  And then another amendment could be passed,
> based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last
> election.  Perhaps this could be called "super-capture."
>
> I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view,
> of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method,
> but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past.
>
> The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about
> the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been
> qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've
> been on the list.  Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know
> because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically
> counter-intuitive.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
> On 9/29/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dear All
>
> This is to draw you 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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