Yes it does. I mainly wanted to see if the idea of organising regional events would get support from you guys.

Question for either or both. Currently we only have 4 members in the CSS. Two of these members are yourselves. What are your plans to address this situation if the two of you are elected? Do you believe we will need to expand the CSS, or will you leave membership to myself and B&N only?

(11-17-2014, 04:33 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: Question for either or both. Currently we only have 4 members in the CSS. Two of these members are yourselves. What are your plans to address this situation if the two of you are elected? Do you believe we will need to expand the CSS, or will you leave membership to myself and B&N only?

Great question. Technically, now, I suppose we have five if we include Arby as VD/Chair of the CSS. Hypothetically, if we would win, Pen would become Chair, but I suppose I would need to suspend or resign my CSS position (Do we have a precedent for this?)

In any case, I think adding two or so new members would be a positive thing. I'm not sure we need to up it to 10, but I think 5/6 would be plenty. I'd think we have some former CSS members who are returned to the region and some other good possibilities -- as we've discussed -- who I think would make apt reinforcement to the CSS.

That was a bit long winded, but I hope that answers your question

There is the case of Belschaft during his latest term as Delegate. He was also a CSS member then, but I have not checked the archives to see how he did. Probably the best course of action would be to refrain from voting, since the Delegate does have observed status. Personally I would sometimes participate in discussions when appropriate, but obviously let the CSS conduct itself.

I agree with Tsu. 5 or 6 at most would be okie dokie by me. Obviously we would need to discuss our choices and such but really i think right now everything is good.

(11-17-2014, 09:03 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There is the case of Belschaft during his latest term as Delegate. He was also a CSS member then, but I have not checked the archives to see how he did. Probably the best course of action would be to refrain from voting, since the Delegate does have observed status. Personally I would sometimes participate in discussions when appropriate, but obviously let the CSS conduct itself.

No serious CSS business came up till after the election to replace me, so this wasn't a real area of consideration or concern. There's no legislation dictating course of action here, so it would be up to the individual to decide how to act - both SB and myself remained active in the CSS whilst Delegate.

(11-18-2014, 03:25 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(11-17-2014, 09:03 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There is the case of Belschaft during his latest term as Delegate. He was also a CSS member then, but I have not checked the archives to see how he did. Probably the best course of action would be to refrain from voting, since the Delegate does have observed status. Personally I would sometimes participate in discussions when appropriate, but obviously let the CSS conduct itself.

No serious CSS business came up till after the election to replace me, so this wasn't a real area of consideration or concern. There's no legislation dictating course of action here, so it would be up to the individual to decide how to act - both SB and myself remained active in the CSS whilst Delegate.

Thanks for the clarification Bels. The ideal situation is obvi. for the CSS not to have serious business, so let's hope it stays that way

Tsu and Pen..i would pose the same question about the parole board that you have been asking the other candidates. What would your approach be towards the parole board? and if elected is there anything you would try to do to revise or change the law as it applies to paroles?

(11-18-2014, 06:31 PM)Apad Wrote: Tsu and Pen..i would pose the same question about the parole board that you have been asking the other candidates. What would your approach be towards the parole board? and if elected is there anything you would try to do to revise or change the law as it applies to paroles?

Apad, thanks for the question.

Since I wouldn't have say in a parole hearing, I'll allow that part to Pen.

Personally, I said this publicly during the parole debate, that we so rarely have a permanent ban as an sentence that I think in any instance that the court finds an offense that serious, it should be upheld.

I have to say that I agree with Tsu. If someone has done something so terrible that they are given a permanent ban then by all means it should stick. The people change argument is all well and good but somethings should not be forgotten.