[PC-NCSG] VC election

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

While I agree with Tapani?s suggestion, I would like to make a couple of points:

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:10 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I?m ok with any procedure that:
> - acknowledges that, unless we are explicitly bound, an NCSG PC decision does not bind our councillors, so we need to individually state our position and

Binding our councillors involves ballots and voting. That?s not what?s going on here. Voting for a NCPH VC to the council has never been a requirement, and to my knowledge, hasn?t been a common practice before either. It?s always been about SG position, and building a NCPH consensus. So saying that the PC is binding our councillors? positions is incorrect.

Furthermore, if you all recall, the PC (and subsequently, the NCSG) position was based on feedback received on this topic from members of this committee. We heard back from reps of both constituencies as well as 5/6 of our councillors. One of our councillors did not indicate agreement or rejection on Heather?s selection as a VC. My point here is that nobody is forcing any of our councillor positions, even in the absence of a vote in which they are or are not bound. Most of the councillors have spoken up on this, and their views are what developed the PC position, not the other way around.

> - includes the NCA.

Yes?, this is a very good point, and should certainly be factored into whatever process we work out for the future.

Thanks.

Amr