+ 1 James. I don't think it's any kind of censorship when for the voting on
critical issues the councillors are bound with the majority opinion.

And no, it's not only about "better knowledge" of the councillors - it's
about representation of the NCSG. Again, freedom of opinion is important
but representation doesn't exist in vacuum, and when it's a 2-years term
and the only form of accountability is not to be re-elected (which, frankly
speaking, will be irrelevant for anyone who is at the end of the second
term, right?) - there is a great chance for internal differences to
undermine the credibility of our work and to mis-represent the position of
the community.
Yes, it is about trust, but it's also about accountability and
representation. I am all for trust and have always been, but I think at
least a real possibility to consider invoking the charter provision on
direct voting in exceptional cases shall be an option.

Warm regards

On 17 August 2016 at 12:47, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Im sorry but I entirely disagree with this, this is an incorrect
> description of directed voting, it is not censorship in any way.
> Its accountability of our councillors to ensure that the NCSG is being
> represented In the way the reflects the feels of the majority of the
> members, we are the only constituency that does not direct its votes.
>
>
> -Jmaes
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Remmy
> Nweke <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday 17 August 2016 at 11:43
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Items for the Meet the Candidates call tomorrow:
> Transparency and coordination in Council
>
> As much as I want us to strengthen the accountability process, it amounts
> to gagging or censoring the councillors in the case of directed voting.
>
>