[LA-Policies] [Linux-aus] Nomination for Council Member / Treasurer

[Chris Neugebauer]

On 18 December 2014 at 12:23, Michael Cordover <la at mjec.net> wrote:
> 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?

Agreed, and I have moved the thread there.

My $0.02, I think your guidance is excellent, and I have enumerated my
affiliations of the categories that you've specified, as part of my
candidacy statement.

--Chris

-- 
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn at gmail.com -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
WWW: http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter: @chrisjrn