NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:55:58 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1045 bytes) , text/html (9 kB)
Off list



From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair





Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)



When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the Board)



Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc



That would be incorrect.

If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by our rules on voting, Councillors, etc.

But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are not applying under those rules.



So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved, we really have no idea how NCSG works.

And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos.

No way around it: Debbie and Amber’s move was untimely and not constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way they’ve done it creates a mess.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2