Dear Seun, Alan,

On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)

The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?

SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.

The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1.
May I suggest:
19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).

Best,

Olivier