I agree, Tsunamy that there needs to be some provision.

Todd, I find it odd that your first instinct is to question objectivity. Can you explain the thought process behind thinking that when the cabinet, legally elected, would be appointing the person who processes apps? Or is there some tangible behavior that you can point to that you find as an example of nonobjectivity?

There is a clear difference between the office of VD being vacant and the office holder being unavailable due to RL events, so I would happily support this.

Alright. Motion to vote.

Second.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't respond last night, but although I think the wording may not be the best ("otherwise unavailable" could possibly be improved, but it does have the right intent), will put this to vote tonight when I get time.

Any further comments?

I'm happy with other wording. I've never claimed to be a expert legal writer

(04-07-2015, 11:57 PM)Escade Wrote: I agree, Tsunamy that there needs to be some provision.

Todd, I find it odd that your first instinct is to question objectivity. Can you explain the thought process behind thinking that when the cabinet, legally elected, would be appointing the person who processes apps? Or is there some tangible behavior that you can point to that you find as an example of nonobjectivity?

There is. I am concerned with the rather liberal interpretation, it's undefined use in the Charter as it pertains to the cabinet, and the selection of individuals as it pertains to the term "security threat".

Um....I am not trying to be sarcastic, cynic or anything, but I honestly didn't understand a single word in your post, Todd. :-/

We all know you're opposed to the whole "security threat" thing Todd. Chances are, you'll take any and every opportunity to plug it into every thread possible (even when it isn't the topic of discussion) so let's not make this about you and stick to the topic at hand.

Up to vote.