On 3 October 2014 14:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have to question how much refinement we should be putting into something that so far, has happened perhaps once every year or two or three and to the best of my recollection has only been challenged once in our history.
Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I have a preference for I will keep to myself for the moment.
I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept it, but suspect it may make us unable to properly fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some additional investigation regarding the interpretation of the Bylaws and how ombudsman issues are resolved.
Agreed, though I would go further and say I find #2 (completely secret) to be unacceptable. Sorry, Tijani, but you need to make a more compelling case of why complete vote secrecy -- that does not even trust the discretion of the ALAC chair -- is demanded. It is my view that we must have openness as the default action, and only compromise it (ie choice #1) in rare and exceptional circumstances. - Evan