Fine in theory. There are two clear problems: 1. How do members learn about how Councillors have voted? and why they did so? Current mechanisms for getting councillors to explain what they are doing do not appear to be particularly fruitful. 2. As someone has already pointed out, if someone is going for their last term (as all 3 current candidates are) once they get in they have a free hand to do whatever they like, because they are term limited. I think we need more accountability. That is not the same as saying we need directed votes all the time. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-17 14:11, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > I agree with Avri -- the right response to a Councillor who votes in a manner that you don't like is to vote for a replacement whose policies you approve of. In a diverse group like the NCSG directed voting is just a formula for the tyranny of the majority. > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > [log in to unmask] > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > www.redbranchconsulting.com > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of avri doria > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:15 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Proposed Items for the Meet the Candidates call tomorrow: Transparency and coordination in Council > > Hi, > > I make no secret of my opposition to directed voting. The NCSG is too diverse for such procedures and that is one of the reasons why the Charter makes binding votes exceptional. Of course the Charter could be changed, but I would argue against such a change. > > On the other hand I am a strong supporter of coordination, and the open Policy meetings we hold before every council meeting are supposed to be a major component of hat coordination process. When these meetings were first organized, they were policy meetings with each Council member expected to attend except for the rarest occasions. It was supposed to be one of their priorities. Yet, I have seen so many of these meeting where many if not most of the Council members are absent with something better to do. > > I very much support the idea of Council members producing Council reports. And believe that Council members should always be willing to explain why they voted the way they did. > > At this point I must say I am very disappointed that we only have as many candidates for council as we have seats on council. One thing we really need, in order to make the accountability processes work, is choice in our elections. True we can vote "none of the above" but that is only going to happen in the most extreme cases, and would leave us with empty seats, which is not a good outcome. I really wish that those who had been nominated and had agreed to run, would not have been convinced (hard to say whether by persons or circumstances) to withdraw their nominations. We need not only good candidates, but a choice of good candidates. > > Note: I think I have a meeting conflict on the 'meet the candidates' > meeting, so will probably not be able to attend. > > avri > > On 17-Aug-16 04:47, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I think this is an excellent idea. Personally, I think wHie should at >> least coordinate council votes, if not direct them. I always tell >> folks how I am going to vote, but frankly a better process is >> necessary, especially with the important matters coming before us on >> human rights, accountability, and privacy. Time to debate a better >> process. Councillors have to be accountable to the folks they represent. >> >> As for a one pager on each council meeting....hardly that onerous, >> with 6 councilors taking turns that is two reports each a year. I am >> not looking for more work, but this does not seem impossible. >> >> Stephanie Perrin >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus