Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Blair <hblair@hotfootmail.com>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson
> >
> > Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose
> > opinion will take precedence?
>
> Richard, you have the wrong question because you don't
> understand the intent. Here's how I see this happening:


Hi Hugh,

No I don't have the wrong question, I have the question I wanted to ask.

I wasn't alluding to the specific decisions on how to constitute the Panel,
but to the long-term relationship between the Poll and the Panel.

Say here are 120 issues polled in the coming 12 months...

Say the Panel disagrees with the expressed opinion of the Membership in 7 of
those issues.

"Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose opinion will take
precedence?"

That is my question.

Abel implies that in such cases, the contested issues would be put to a
"full vote". But some would argue that an elected Panel should be allowed
the slack to exercise its own judgements, contrary to Poll findings,
particularly where the result is marginal.

And then you are into very grey and contentious areas.

What I'm saying is that to pre-empt future conflict, we should state clearly
the rules of precedence.

Personally, I do not like the argument that you let elected Panelists do
what they want, and everything will be alright in the end because you can
always vote them out later. I dislike that argument because the damage may
be done in the meantime.

Personally, I've advocated all along that we should create a constitution
where the Membership is always sovereign, and has powers to intervene. The
Polling Process can be part of that Process of Intervention.

If we are bottom-up, and implementing the wishes of the membership, then we
should safeguard the membership's priority. That does not mean running the
whole org by Poll. Far from it. In any Polling Vote, there should be an
option to "Allow the Panel to decide on grounds that I do not have an
informed view of the issue"... something like that.

There should also be a means of distinguishing serious polling issues from
frivolous ones.

But where issues are serious, and polled, and the majority want to re-direct
the Panel, then the constitution must re-enforce that right (IMHO). It
should not be left to an unwritten 'understanding'.

No doubt all these matters will be addressed *before* any move to initiate
the Poll. And yes, I'm happy to be patient about all this, with thanks for
your thoughts and efforts!

But I conclude -  the line management:

Members > Panel
Members > Poll > confirm Panel policy or re-direct it.

But it is always the Members who are the controlling guardians of their own
organisation.


yrs,

Richard H





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de