Following on from yesterday's mildly intemperate comments about the rules for electing the new Council of Unlock Democracy, I have been asked to point out that all decisions on the content of those rules are made by the Council of Unlock Democracy, a body of which I am currently a member.
And, being a civilised soul at heart, I am happy to issue such a correction.
This raises an interesting question, in terms of collective responsibility. Regardless of the internal debate within Council, I am technically bound by collective responsibility for its decisions. Now, when it is a question of prioritisation in our campaigning, or decisions about how the organisation is run, that's quite easy. There are, after all, many ways of doing things, and one should respect the existing culture of the group.
However, when it comes to a decision which, to my mind, flies in the face of the organisation's fundamental principles, one does have to ask the question, is this the right place for me to be? And, to be honest, I'm not sure.
So, much to think about and reflect upon. I'll let you know what I decide... Ah, I forget, I can't...
2 comments:
Does not sound much like open democracy.
Unlock Democracy’s internal election regulations are decided by our members. The rules are designed to provide a level playing field and to prevent wealthier candidates from having too great an advantage. The current rules were set before Facebook and Twitter were in widespread use.
Any member concerned about these rules could have submitted a standing order amendment to our AGM. No-one did so. We are keen to encourage as many members as possible to stand for election. For more details see our website: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/elections
Post a Comment