Bret Fausett wrote:
It's always been the case that, once elected, the ALAC representatives are free to vote their conscience and take advice, but not instructions, from others in the region. Speaking only for myself, I greatly prefer this current model and would not recommend the LACRALO approach as you have described it. Precisely because people have day jobs, it would be very difficult to give binding instructions to the ALAC reps on the issues. I'd rather accept the time commitment of those who are elected and trust their judgment. If we disagree with their choices over time, we can replace them at the next election. Agreed. This is a difficult grey area.
Legally requiring the formal agreement by the RALO for every action by their reps would strike me as simply too much of an impediment to getting real work done. There needs to be trust that the reps will act in the best interest of the region, but also confidence that they will consult with their RALO -- and follow its consensus -- whenever possible. In my experience, forcing such trust by regulation generally causes more problems than it solves. In the case of the NomComm vote, I'd hoped that there would have been even minimum consultation on the candidate changes. As Danny has indicated, Dierker _was_ known in the community; a simple question to the RALO may well have addressed the ALAC's concern about their personal lack of familiarity with him. - Evan