The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do.
Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers.
So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help.
When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it.
Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================