Petition to the SC Dean in Re: Chancellor Election

[michelmanen]

To: Dean of Scientific Council
CDS

RE: Chancellor Election

Madam Dean,

We are faced with the possiblity that at least one candidate for the position of Chancellor be an elected member of the RA. Given the relevant dispositions of the CDS Constitution, stating that:
[quote:2roxempv]
The Chancellor may not be elected to or serve on the Representative Assembly, nor serve on the Scientific Council. The Chancellor may hold a position in the Artisanal Collective but may not vote therein. [/quote:2roxempv]

and that:

[quote:2roxempv]No member of the RA may engage in what might be considered a conflict of interest such as accepting money or favors from individuals or special-interest groups.[/quote:2roxempv]

the following two critical questions arise:

1. Can an individual who was elected to th RA stand for Chancellor?

2. If so, can this individual vote for him/herself?

I look forward to a ruling by rhe SC on these matters before the Chancellor election process actually commences.

Sincerely,

Michel Manen

[michelmanen]

We are now less than 24 hours from the opening of the RA and the election of the Chancellor. We still do not know what the rules of the election are and who may or my not run, despite the clear questions asked well in advance in this Petition.

As the initiator of the Petition, I will ask three questions regarding this matter:

1. Does the SC actually exist, meet and fulfill its constitutional duties?

2. If it does, is there any reason why it chooses not to make public its decisions in such important matters?

3. Finally, what does this say about the state of our democracy, when in a matter of such critical importance as the Chancellor election, the SC fails to deliver its decision on the eligibility of candidates and election procedure less than one day before the actual event, despite having received a petition from a CDS citizen drafted and submitted well in advance, in a accordance with its own rules?

[Fernando Book]

Michael,

I haven't talk with my Dean, but I think the SC can't issue an injuction at your request, about facts that haven't happened or procedures not approved. If the RA wants to ask the SC about the procedures of the Chancellor election or the incompatibilities issue, we can state our opinion, even a formal one, and then the RA may or may not follow our recomendation.

Anyway, after the RA has chosen a Chancellor, nothing prevents any citizen to make an appeal if he feels the Constitution has been violated. If we follow the logic, and provided there are no new data or modifications, if the RA has followed our recomendation the SC will upheld its decision, and if the assembly has followed another course we will have to study it and perhaps repeal it. But if we haven't received a consultation, everything will be studied after the election of the Chancellor.

Of course, I [i:99ply34k]do [/i:99ply34k]have an opinion about both issues, but it would be premature to make it public in the forums, as it's almost sure I will have to make it formal in a SC meeting.

[michelmanen]

I haven't asked for any injunction. I just asked the SC to clarify the election rules before the actual elections take place- by interpreting 2 specific sections of the CDS Constitution. Why is that so difficult?

[quote:1hyfqyt6]if the RA has followed our recomendation the SC will upheld its decision[/quote:1hyfqyt6]

Exactly. Can we actually know what its recommendations are on the 2 questions I asked? Since I am running for Chancellor, I believe I ought at least to know what the rules governing the elections are before it actually takes place. Don't you agree?

[Bromo Ivory]

I am on vacation/holiday at the moment. Given how hotly contested and lobbied this is, I do think a quick note or posting on this question is important to maintain the legitimacy of the prcoess

Gwyn? Can you address this?

[this is not a request for an injunction, but simple stating the ground rules]

also Brian and I wont be there - how do we get sworn?

[oh as a Quaker, would much prefer a affirmation rather than a swearing which is normally not allowed in the RSoF]

[Jon Seattle]

Hi Bromo -- last time I was on the RA I did made an affirmation. I am not sure what the official position is, but it was easy to change the wording.

[michelmanen]

Moon's resignation renders this petition moot. I still am at a loss to understand why the SC decided to either not reply to the two questions posed therein asking it to provide an authoritative interpretation of the CDS constitution in these matters -or if it did, why it chose not to make its position known, to the public at large and to the candidates in the running for the position of Chancellor.