motion on Chatham

[Kimberley Heitman]

While I agree that open and accountable minutes of meetings is the
preferable default, the CH Rule sometimes arises from the inability of a
delegate to announce an organisation's position until a process is complete
or the appropriate spokesperson issues a statement. For example : Fred from
ALACISH says a rough consensus is in favour of the motion with an amendment,
but there are still three tiers of committees who must sign off on it -
minutes to show that "a delegate supported the motion with an amendment".
Likewise, the suits may only be authorised to negotiate, vote on procedural
motions without prejudice to further stakeholder opposition or tentatively
agree pending white smoke from Head Office. 

Accordingly, Mary's suggestion to allow some members of discussions to
declare a matter under CH rules in exceptional circumstances gives what some
at these meetings will consider to be useful wiggle room; enabling ongoing
discussions without the names being recorded in the minutes. 

Regards,
Kim

-----------------------
Kimberley James Heitman
www.kheitman.com
----------------------- 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
>DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Nuno Garcia
>Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2010 7:36 PM
>To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Subject: Re: motion on Chatham
>
>The simple idea that someone has something to hide gives me the creeps....
>
>BR,
>Nuno
>
>2010/1/28 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:
>> At 5:09 PM -0800 27/1/10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not so keen on the amendment re: Chatham House rule.   I don't like
>>> the idea that the review teams can decide its a secret and its a secret.
>>>  Its too easy and there is no limitation on what they can decide is an
>>> exceptional circumstance.
>>
>>        The Chatham house rule means that nothing that is said is secret,
>> only who said it. If, in some peoples discomfort with the Chatham house
>> rule, we end up giving review teams the option to use more restrictive
>> rules, that would be a poor outcome.
>>        Cheers
>>                David
>>