RE: [ga] The North American DNSO BoD chair

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> 3) the NC must ignore this because it isn't part of the ground 
> rules.  Saying that the nominations were really elections in 
> disguise changes the rules dramatically, and many people would have 
> done things much differently if that were really to be the case.  
> You mention my case, where I gave support to people after there were 
> already 10:  *IF* I thought that this was really an election, and 
> not nominations, I *would* have done things quite differently.  That 
> is a fact.  Indeed I gave support to many people, but I would have 
> done things much more carefully if I thought I was really voting.
> 
> The bottom line is that you can't just change the rules halfway 
> along, as Roberto tried to do -- it only confuses things, and makes 
> them worse.
> 

I only answer to this (#3), because I think is the most importand point of
disagreement, not because I agree with the rest.

Nominations should not be elections in disguise, I agree on this, but should
also not be a purely formal (and trivial) process. In other words, in order
for the GA to have a *real* role in the nominations, the output of the
process should be a shortlist of candidates that *the GA* nominates and
supports, not a raw list of candidates that "10 out of
I-don't-know-how-many-people" nominate and support.
What has to be avoided is the possibility for 10 people to get together and
nominate a troika on which there is already agreement at the council level
for election (this I said before the details of the election process were
given, and this I maintain now). I am not arguing that this *is* the case. I
don't mean that there's a "conspiracy" from the Council to impose predefined
people, I am just saying that this risk should be avoided.
For being substantial and not formal, the role of the GA will be to produce
a list of people on which there is already some kind of agreement: as I said
above, a shortlist (I even proposed some kind of "primary" elections). This
is the added value that makes the list of candidates a "qualified list" -
this is the added value that makes the nominated people "nominated by the
GA".
In practice, I would be happy with a nomination process that gives as output
not the list of people that have at least ten ballots (sometimes even
questionable, as in one case that was discussed in a separate thread), but
the list of (n) people that have the highest number of votes.
Then the council could choose whom they see fit.

This procedure will "give a role to the GA". The current procedure does not.

About changing the rules halfway through, please bear in mind that I said
the same things "before". There was no answer at all, just the notice of the
decision of doing things differently. Perfectly legal, according to the
bylaws, but politically shortsighted.
In fact, I maintain my point: the council considers the GA an infortunate
accident that they have to cope with, with the least "damage". Of course,
following this line of thought, any reaction by the GA "will make things
worse".
BTW, I don't want to think that this is just a preview of what will happen
for the at-large membership and Directors.

Anyway, after the elections we have to go forward anyhow.
Any idea to how to proceed rebalancing the matter, and making the GA
counting more?
(yes, I am assuming that the Council will follow your advice and "not
listen" to the GA, and therefore there will be the problem of defining which
role and power will the GA have)

Regards
Roberto