Rosie,
Thank you for your question. It is quite gratifying to see that the same three public officials who two years ago so enthusiastically voted in favor of changing the composition of the RA from proportional representation to a fixed number of 5, without engaging in any public consultations whatsoever, are now the three individuals most concerned with the fairness, impartiality, and good management of this Advisory Commission. I cannot help but think that, had they shown the same due diligence then regarding the responsibilities they had been entrusted with by the citizens of CDS as their elected representatives, as they now rightly require of the members of this Commission, this APCC would have been entirely unnecessary.
I note that this unfortunate oversight in no way deterred their on-going dedication to the CDS: one of them continues to occupy the same position on the RA as two years ago; another is a former Chancellor who ran for re-election and was defeated in a close call by the current incumbent, who called this advisory commission into existence; whilst the third, a former LRA herself, was designated by the current LRA as the Chair of the Conflict of Interests Commission in what the LRA herself admitted was an “excess of enthusiasm”, in violation of the RA’s own instructions for that commission’s Chair to be selected by the commission’s members themselves after consideration of a number of candidates, and then only confirmed by the RA, in order to avoid any actual and perceived conflict of interests on the part of its members.
I mention this only in order to highlight the fact that the three individuals who show such sustained and welcome interest in the workings of this Advisory Commission are not citizens who rarely if ever get involved in the governance process of the CDS, but seasoned elected and appointed officials who could easily find the simple answer to their own questions by consulting the Terms of Reference of this APCC, as published by the Chancellor here on August 31
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5441:
“1. An Advisory Popular Consultation Commission (APCC) is hereby appointed.
2. The mandate of the APCC is to organize open and inclusive citizen consultations within the CDS regarding the appropriate size of the RA, and hold an advisory vote designed to clarify the free and democratic will of all CDS citizens on this fundamental issue.
3. Discussions on this topic will be held at times and places to be announced by the APCC Facilitator, to be appointed by the Chancellor from a list of volunteers, on September 7, 2014;
4. The discussions outlined above will take place over a period of one month, from September 15 to October 14, 2014;
5. A direct formal expression of opinion, to be expressed in writing by each CDS citizen via a notecard transmitted directly to the APCC Facilitator, will take place between October 15 and October 24.
6. The text of the question to be debated and answered by all CDS citizens wishing to do so, as outlined above, is as follows:
"The original CDS Constitution stated that: "The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."
Should this provision of the original CDS Constitution regarding RA size be restored?"
6. The results of this Advisory CDS Citizens’ Consultation will be formally announced by the APCC Facilitator on October 25, 2014, at a time and place to be announced.”
This was followed on September 21. by this announcement by the Chancellor: “I am pleased to announce that Michel Manen has agreed to be the APCC Facilitator. I have asked Michel to form the commission and propose the new timeline for its work.”
AS APCC Facilitator (position offered to me only after it was offered by the Chancellor to Guillaume Mistwaker, who had volunteered for it before withdrawing due to understandable and urgent RL commitments), my assigned tasks consist in:
1. selecting a number of assistants to help me moderate the various discussions and debates that will take place over the next six weeks;
2. contacting all CDS citizens and persuading them to participate in such discussions and debates, in order to form their own, reasoned and informed opinions on this important matter; and
3. collecting the citizens’ notecards containing their response to the question set by the Chancellor, and reporting on the results.
The tasks of my assistants consist solely in assisting with the organization and moderation of the discussion sessions to be held over the coming weeks, as explained above.
Since we, as a group, have not been mandated to either express our opinions on this topic during the debates, nor prepare and submit any conclusions or recommendations after their end (in contrast to other commissions appointed by the RA currently at work), I had no need to inquire and did not in fact inquire as to Molly’s and Nolligan’s opinions on this matter, nor did I offer them mine. I simply explained to them how the process would unfold, and what their role would be, then proceeded with the task assigned to me to contact all CDS citizens and organize the required meetings.
In short, the answer to your question is: The Terms of Reference set by the Chancellor for this APCC: 1) provide me with the wording of the question to be asked of all CDS citizens; and 2) do not require me to consult with my assistants as to the specific wording of all my communications with CDS citizens, inviting them to participate in this process. I have fully complied with these Terms of Reference.