In my opinion, it is the decision of the EC especially the Chair on this. I must point out that The tone and Tanner used (James) is not right. 

The whole idea of the EC is to vest trust in them to taken decisions for the rest of the members. 
Appologies in advance if I am being direct. 

Sent from my mobile device. Typos regretted.

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 23 10:42, James Gannon ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani can I see where that decision to restrict attendance to
>> Councillors and ExCom members was taken and documented please? As
>> that was not the case in previous intercessional.
> 
> As far as I know it's been the case in every intersessional, with the
> obvious caveat that when some councillor or EC member could not
> attend, others could be (and were) substituted.
> 
> I don't think anything would stop us from excluding some of them,
> regardless of their ability to come, in favour of others deemed more
> important if we choose to, but the number of participants is fixed.
> 
> Formally it was decided in the spring when the budget request was
> made, negotiating with CSG and staff, but in practice we simply
> followed precedent and staff-given budget constraints. If I remember
> correctly people involved were me, Rafik and Rudi from NCSG and
> similar number of CSG folks. I could dig up the correspondence and
> budget request if need be. I don't remember who decided it and how for
> the first intersessional in 2013.
> 
> Also, there have been "social events" where local non-participants
> could be invited. But in the actual meeting it was always the case
> that CSG and NCSG had to have same number of people, based on
> the number of EC members and councillors.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen