Re: [nc-intake] Revised Draft

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>]

Philip

Just a brief not to congratulate you on pushing this forward over the holiday
period....

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Thanks YJ for the question on size. I will add a comment about the size. An
> odd number is sensible. Given there are 7 constituencies and we do NOT want
> it to represent the constituencies it must be smaller than 7.  It should
> also be bigger than 1. This leaves either 3 or 5 members. So I will define
> small as "an odd number not greater than 5".  We are currently 5 and this
> leaves possible future flexibility for a 3 member group.

5 is good... three would be tooooo small IMHO

> Time limit
> Is this making too much of things ? I am wary about setting down rules that
> are forgotten about later!! As Caroline says its going to be no hugely
> desirable task after all.  Perhaps we should just say " Members should be
> rotated from time to time".

My main concern is that we should be open and transparent (with no opportunity
for "filtering" topics - but we all agree on that one) .... consequently there
should be opportunity for rotation of members (say once per year).
If the NC membership is happy with the work undertaken by each IC member (and
they are willing to remain) on the IC, then they should be able to participate
for a further term.  However, if a NC member leaves the NC or there is a request
by another NC member to be on the IC then there should be an opportunity for
"volunteers" to step down to make a vacancy... for the IC to accept the new
participant.

I also think it would be prudent to disclose the agenda items proposed but not
accepted by the IC with the the IC specifying its justifications ..... If
insufficient documentation is supplied by the proposer, it notifies the NC of a
pending issue and gives the proposer more time to prepare - making the NC more
productive/efficient.

Best

Paul