[Linux-aus] Nomination for Council Member / Treasurer

[Michael Cordover]

On 18 December 2014 at 11:35, Chris Neugebauer <chrisjrn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 11:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
> <tleeuwenburg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In my view, each candidate should have the opportunity to fill in a
> > pro-forma statement form, leading to about a one-page overview of their
> > qualifications and background. I do not anticipate that there are sufficient
> > resources to make this a reality.
> >
>
> This is meant to be the "Acceptance Spiel" in the election system, so
> it wouldn't be difficult to elaborate on what's expected when
> accepting a nomination.

I think encouraging this during the nomination/acceptance process
would be excellent.

In terms of what information is requested, I don't think we should be
requiring people to disclose their employer, qualifications etc. What
we should be doing is asking people to disclose any potential for
conflict between (1) their potential duty to LA/interests as a member
of council and (2) their other interests or duties. In law a common
formulation is that nominees should disclose anything which might
cause a fair-minded observer to reasonably apprehend the existence of
a bias in undertaking nominee's role on the council.

Or to say it another way: in relation to your (potential) role on
council, might someone think your involvement with another
organisation/person would cause you to consider their interests rather
than LA's? If so, let us know about that involvement when accepting
your nomination.

I think the following are all good examples:

 * involvement with grant recipients
 * involvement with a media organisation that reports on (or would be
interested in) LA's activities
 * involvement with other similar organisations
 * involvement with sponsors of or suppliers to LA
 * involvement with any organisation which has been or is in dispute with LA

None of these would disqualify a person from standing - indeed some
might be seen as very positive things in a candidate - but I think
they are relevant to the election process. They're also relevant to
the council process, though I have no doubt that  conflicts are
already adequately disclosed to and managed by the council.

I don't think this detracts from LA's community feel to request that,
and I don't think we need to focus too much on it. Aside from a
reminder on the memberdb page when accepting a nomination, we would
rely on self-regulation.

If you want to go really far you could have a standing agenda item at
council meetings: declaration of conflicts by attendees in relation to
anything else on the agenda. That's common practice in certain
government/large charity boards but it's basically as far as anyone in
Australia goes.

Anyway, just my thoughts, and starting to wander off topic. Maybe this
discussion should be migrated to the LA-Policies list?

 - mjec