[NCUC-EC] NCUC Operating Procedures

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Yes, it can be that too.
Probably best then since that leaves no room for unclear process.


On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 6:40 PM, farzaneh badii
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> Renata, in that case chair can just refer the candidate to the suitable
> person for advice.  I don't think it's a big deal really. But if you think
> it is just make the necessary change in text and we can discuss with the
> members.
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I agree w/ all points Michael noted but 1
>>
>> Chair's advice for candidate to do better on future appointments
>>
>> Sometimes EC member or a mentor might know candidate better
>>
>> Sometimes member is not appointed if there is a potential conflict of
>> interest or correspondence to the function is not ideal - we are seeing now
>> the discussion about the difficulty w/ the "multiple hats" members of the
>> group
>>
>> So I would suggest leaving this open. Candidate may request advice. Not
>> necessarily from Chair.
>>
>> Em 27 de ago de 2017 4:25 PM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> Thanks Michael.
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the Google doc everyone:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uolqcYivX_KVOgPdjl3wB_aBkHyLcFkvzNsNU47BRQY/edit#heading=h.1x7lfonwlklh
>>>
>>> Please comment or resolve issues on the above link. Deadline to finalize
>>> is tomorrow, so I will put the doc back for second reading by the members
>>> tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Michael Karanicolas
>>> <michael at law-democracy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with "guidelines" rather than requirements.
>>>>
>>>> I just tried to edit the transparency sections, but the doc told me my
>>>> access had changed halfway through. A couple of small suggested changes, as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>> C.  Review and selection of candidates:
>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates’ statements
>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications
>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one
>>>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not
>>>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing
>>>> them of the EC’s decision. Upon request of the candidate, or where otherwise
>>>> appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can
>>>> increase their chances of appointment in future rounds.
>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate a meeting shall be
>>>> arranged to discuss and deliberate the candidates applications
>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially
>>>> but the record should be kept by Chair
>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately but the notes, recording and the
>>>> transcript should be kept in case the EC decision is challenged  Upon
>>>> request of the candidate(s), a more detailed account of the assessment of
>>>> their candidacy will be provided.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in agreement with the changes
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the appointees section should be guidelines, I don't think much
>>>>> should be added there and a note that some requisites are desirable not
>>>>> obligatory
>>>>>
>>>>> Em 22 de ago de 2017 11:02 PM, "farzaneh badii"
>>>>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reminding you of the timeline for the operating procedure. We are now
>>>>>> at the stage of resolving the comments. We have until 28th August, then
>>>>>> members need to look at it again and comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Important things to do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to sort out the transparency issue for selections and
>>>>>> appointments, please have a look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to be more precise about the requirements of appointees
>>>>>> section (II).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should probably not be too restrictive. So I suggest instead of
>>>>>> calling it "requirements" lets say guidelines for appointments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uolqcYivX_KVOgPdjl3wB_aBkHyLcFkvzNsNU47BRQY/edit#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>>> <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates regarding this work.
>>>>>>> I'm in agreement w/ timeline and sending document for familiarization
>>>>>>> and comments by members
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> --
> Farzaneh