Re: [ncc-charter] Charter revision

From: Milton Mueller (
Date: Fri Aug 18 2000 - 10:48:04 PDT

  • Next message: Kent Crispin: "Re: [ncc-charter] Charter revision"

    Thanks for your comments.

    Comments below. Bottom line: I cannot accept your proposal for Adcom
    replacement unless it is modified in some way to meet the objections set out
    below. We all agree, I'm sure, that the charter committee should go back to
    the constituency unified. We don't want to have to debate these issues on
    the list. So let's try to find some mutually acceptable compromise.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dany Vandromme"

    > -
    > I saw the difference between the alternate and the replacement. My feeling
    > is that, for a fair vote, all candidature should be equivalent.
    > If some ballot have 2 names rather than one, the result will be affected
    > anyway by the combination effect (that effect can be + or -), depending if
    > the second name will attract or repulse. I am sure that a second name will
    > not be neutral.

    The "Adcom" replacement method means is that voters have no idea who will
    replace the person they vote for. That is much worse, in my opinion. It is
    certainly less fair.

    > Second, having some ballot with two names and others with one name is not
    > fair, even if the second name is not mandatory. I understand that your

    I see no "unfairness." Everyone has the same chance to put forward a
    replacement candidate. If they choose not to, it is their choice, and voters
    can take this into consideration. How is this unfair?

    > Last, your proposal will induce an over representation of the 2-names
    > region (not in the NC meeting, since we are talking of replacement
    > proposal) in the running of the constituency.

    No. This is just mistaken on your part. The replacement candidate is not a
    formal member of Adcom. See the charter. And besides, as you have noted to
    me, anyone can volunteer to be on any committee, and to participate in Adcom
    meetings. So if there are two "activists" from one region, that region may
    be "overrepresented" with or without this proposal.

    Just to show you how meaningless this objection is, both Kent and I are from
    the same region. We are both active in Adcom meetings. And yet, we have very
    different ideas, and we represent very different groups. So what does it
    mean, that NA is "overrepresented?" And does it make any difference whether
    or not either of us is a replacement candidate? Both of us will be active

    > I keep a strong preference for using the next adcom member as interim,
    > before organizing a new election, in which the second has a good chance to
    > be elected, if he has shown a good voice, presence and activity as a
    > regular member of the constituency.

    Let me outline some of the problems with this method. I don't think they
    have been discussed enough.

    First, when you have a replacement election, it means that people from other
    regions already represented on the NC play an unusually large, and unfair
    role in selecting the candidate from the unrepresented region. Here's an
    example. NCC has a majority of Asia-Pacific organizations. But YJ is already
    elected to NC so all those people cannot vote for an AP candidate. That
    means they will play an overwhelming role in selecting the EU, LAC and NA
    candidates. Unless there is a replacement candidate, replacement elections
    completely redistribute voter power within the constituency.

    Second, one consequence of the above is that people who should resign may
    not resign, in order to avoid the loss of power or position. Kathy was
    willing to resign because she knew she was not capable of meeting the
    obligations and thought I would replace her. It would have been pretty easy
    just to hang on to the position. I am not saying that she would do that, but
    lots of people might do it. And that is definitely bad for the NCC. People
    who are unable to perform should resign immediately, and the replacement
    system makes it more likely that they will do so.

    Third: YJ got over 40 votes in the last election. You, Dany, as next in line
    in Adcom, got 18 votes from completely different people. If YJ resigned,
    someone who got less than half as many votes from completely different
    people takes her seat on the NC. This just doesn't seem right to me.
    However, if YJ and her constituency don't care, and YJ runs for election
    without a replacement candidate, then it is ok, because her voters know that
    she will be replaced by the next Adcom member in the event of a resignation.
    So my proposal just gives constituency members more consistent

    So I cannot accept the Adcom replacement method. Let's come up with a

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 10:50:48 PDT