On 16 Jul 2013, at 06:16, Ron Andruff wrote:
<Transcript SCI - 13 July 2013.doc>
My specific remarks refer to: " Within that dialogue and discussion one of the issues that was bought up -- in fact I was the one it bought it forward -- was the issue of whether or not we should be considering the element of full consensus versus (rough) consensus. And we had discussions about that internally but, again, as our charter needs to determine this and we need to refine it, I wanted just to bring that back to the table for the Council's consideration as well. " This was an issue that the committee had decided not to bring forward in the revised charter. As chair it was you job to accurately report our status. This does not do that. The SCI did decide to bring this to the Council as an open issue. Yet you presumed to do so on your own. When it comes time for the council to review the charter an it does public comments would have been the right time to do this. Instead you put your own issues forward as a still open issue that the SCI wanted the council to consider. I believed then and I beleive now that this was transgressive behavior for a chair who did not get his way in the committee, and this I continue to object to it. I also beleive that as chair you do not control when we speak of a subject. Chairing is an service task, and if the members want to talk about something on the list, I see no vantage point from which you have the authority to stifle that discussion. This is not a regular working group. This is a group in which each of us participates as the representative of our SGs and Cs. As Chair you were elected to represent that group and not your own interests in the guise of an official report to the council. avri