[governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination

Sun Feb 26 14:53:42 EST 2012

To me the key is this  should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of
commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office?
To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then
stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite
willing to do this if he has not done so already.

So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not
against the decision either. I think Sala¹s decision was completely right
and will leave interpretation of the  Charter to others.

Ian 

From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG
Nomination

Dear Parminder,

Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter.

To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter.
The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision
must be aligned to the Charter.

The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that
decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they
were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the
NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team.

Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were
specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter,
there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team.

On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to
, aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I
said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to
factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if
that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be
possibilities of "conflict:.

Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is
being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew"
the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very
impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his
Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the
reefs.]

This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to
activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new
Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom.

In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case
has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the
NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by
force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators
influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to
select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and
procedures prescribed in the Charter.

Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is
certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to
the list. 

My comments are inline:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
> Dear Sala
> 
> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination
> to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, although
> there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it
> would not want its outcomes to be nullified.

> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off
> one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee.

Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no
power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many
lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above.

> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an
> authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power -
> whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the
> appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this
> instance.
> 
If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please
provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse.
What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated.

> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones.
> Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they
> are replaced by a new set.

Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been
the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the
Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We
were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I
had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some
decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that
with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope.

> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a
> new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and
> importance should be obvious.
The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs
revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members
at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available
in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the
issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom,
who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or
reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for
discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list]

> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is
> wrong. 

The decision was based on the Charter.

> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals
> committee. 

I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the
current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning
the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it
not?
> 
> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and
> no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be....
> 
This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that
I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review
current procedures and guidelines.

> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect.

You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which
the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked.
Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused
himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is
the will of the list.

> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should
> start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest.

That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My
recommendations are to review the Charter.

Respectfully,

parminder 

> 
> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> Dear Imran, 
>> 
>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG
>> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find
>> the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012.
>> 
>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> -- 
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> 
>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>>  
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120227/43da1562/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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