Since I was not able to explain my vote more fully at the meeting, please allow me to do so here.
First, I am not against the formation of the Electoral Advisory Committee. I voted against the Electoral Committee Terms of Reference (Version 3) because the TOR included the expenditure of "up to $25,000" for a "consultant and other expenses". To me, the setting up of the committee is a separate issue from the hiring of a consultant and the budget of up to $25,000 should not be included in the resolution approving the ToR.
Second, I welcome the fact that the members of the Electoral Committee are to be selected on the basis of their "expertise in Governance models and election procedures." I am quite confident that there will be enough volunteers who will meet these qualifications. It this is the case, why should the UNA prejudge the situation by imposing a consultant on the committee as an integral part of the TOR?
Third, the TOR has clearly indicated the required qualifications of the members of the Electoral Committee. However,it does not have a clear indication of the role of the consultant, his qualifications, the basis for his remuneration, etc. To me, such a separate TOR for the consultant is needed and requires a separate vote.
Fourth, at a time when the UNA is facing a deficit, why is it hiring a consultant when there are quite a number of individuals with expertise who are willing to do the job for free?
Finally, from the discussions at the meeting, I got the impression that the consultant to be hired is already predetermined and the hiring is not subject to a competitive process. The consultant mentioned was the author of the 2010 UNA Electoral Manual. I have read the Manual and have some serious questions about its contents and applicability to the UNA situation. To hire the consultant and include a "review" of the 2010 Manual as a part of the Tasks of the Electoral Advisory Committee seems to me like a "conflict of interest" on the part of the consultant.
Again, I am sorry that I was not able to explain more fully at the Board meeting the reasons for my vote. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do thisl.
1 comment:
Since I was not able to explain my vote more fully at the meeting, please allow me to do so here.
First, I am not against the formation of the Electoral Advisory Committee. I voted against the Electoral Committee Terms of Reference (Version 3) because the TOR included the expenditure of "up to $25,000" for a "consultant and other expenses". To me, the setting up of the committee is a separate issue from the hiring of a consultant and the budget of up to $25,000 should not be included in the resolution approving the ToR.
Second, I welcome the fact that the members of the Electoral Committee are to be selected on the basis of their "expertise in Governance models and election procedures." I am quite confident that there will be enough volunteers who will meet these qualifications. It this is the case, why should the UNA prejudge the situation by imposing a consultant on the committee as an integral part of the TOR?
Third, the TOR has clearly indicated the required qualifications of the members of the Electoral Committee. However,it does not have a clear indication of the role of the consultant, his qualifications, the basis for his remuneration, etc. To me, such a separate TOR for the consultant is needed and requires a separate vote.
Fourth, at a time when the UNA is facing a deficit, why is it hiring a consultant when there are quite a number of individuals with expertise who are willing to do the job for free?
Finally, from the discussions at the meeting, I got the impression that the consultant to be hired is already predetermined and the hiring is not subject to a competitive process. The consultant mentioned was the author of the 2010 UNA Electoral Manual. I have read the Manual and have some serious questions about its contents and applicability to the UNA situation. To hire the consultant and include a "review" of the 2010 Manual as a part of the Tasks of the Electoral Advisory Committee seems to me like a "conflict of interest" on the part of the consultant.
Again, I am sorry that I was not able to explain more fully at the Board meeting the reasons for my vote. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do thisl.
Prod
Post a Comment