The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:30:00 -
[1]
It's quite clear the CSM needs a set of standing orders or it won't function properly. It doesn't matter what mix of people you get on it, there will always be arguments about process unless it is set out clearly.
Overall, I feel that almost everyone involved is failing to respect the roles of officers, representatives and alternates on the CSM. Where Jade can justly be criticised is in being too forebearing and allowing chaos to reign.
I do agree that Jade should not have restated the issue of alternates motion but I am quite sure it was not intended in any malign way. The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it. It was mistaken because it should have been left to the mover of the motion to do this.
As to the things decided by the CSM regarding alternates, I think they are nothing short of disgraceful and should not have been on the agenda at all as they seek to significantly alter the role of alternates as set out in the summary document. As it is, the decision made is deeply unjust to those who were elected as alternates on the basis of the original documentation.
 Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the
next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement
does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesłand Alternates
when serving in the place of Representativesłhave equal power on the CSM.
So, the order in which the candidates are elected is immaterial in terms of privileges, and it is made clear this extends to alternates when they are acting as representatives in a meeting. Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting. They do not. Once summoned to a meeting by the Chair (which is explicitly a power of the Chair) the alternate is an equal on the committee. Once summoned it is repugnant, given what is written on the role, that they should be dislodged from the meeting by anyone.
Incidentally, yes, the entire paragraph is conflicted with the current process of selecting the Chair. The current process is in my opinion bad practice. A committee of equals should elect its own chair. Once selected the Chair does have certain powers as set out out in the roles of officers and members in the document. (The main power within a meeting being that of moderation.)
Next, the critical issue of alternates and terms:
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, Term Length and Duration of the CSM"
[...] No Representative or Alternate can serve more than two
terms on the CSM, consecutive or otherwise. An Alternate has been considered
serving a term the instant he or she attends a Council meeting in the absence
of a Representative; an Alternate can be elected more than two times if that
Alternate does not participates [sic] in any Council meetings. [...]
Like much in the CSM documentation this is somewhat ambiguous. The harshest interpretation is that an alternate who attends even one CSM meeting immediately expends one of their possible terms as either an alternate or representative. That is to say, it is possible to become ineligible to stand for election as a representative by attending one meeting as an alternate in one electoral session of the CSM and one meeting as an alternate in another electoral session of the CSM. Another possibility is that it means someone can only act as an alternate twice as well as as a representative twice. In either case, it indicates the seriousness of the act of attending a meeting as an alternate.
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |