cblome@yahoo.com writes:
> One could argue that the apparent close-hold nature of the SCAC
> proceedings invites precisely this kind of speculation.
>
> Are SCAC records closed to the general membership? If so, is this the
> right policy in the face of the rumors, hearsay, and outright
> accusations of favoritism (e.g. Chrysler) we see on this list almost
> constantly?
Uh-oh, now you went and let the Genie out of the bottle! :-)
First, let me say that a lot of our upstanding peers have served us extremely
well by volunteering their limited time on these Boards; putting their
personal interests aside to make ethically sound decisions that are in the
best spirit of the membership at whole. Unfortunately, there have been, are,
and will be a few (hopefully very few) that make a decision(s) that serves
their own personal agenda; whether it be class-oriented, tire contract-
oriented, etc. Maybe they don't get to directly participate in the vote due
to self-conflict, but they do get to politic a viewpoint and try to gain
support for their own selfish interests.
It may seem that the current "closed-door" policy promotes this rare type of
situation. However, even if you were to make the meeting notes open to all,
we still can't control what people say or argue for/against unofficially
behind the scenes. Still, I'm not sure that we shouldn't at least make the
voting positions of each member public record. I'm not saying we should, only
that maybe we need to consider it. Is there any reason why we shouldn't know
"for a fact" what position the people who represent our areas are taking on
certain issues.
Mark Sipe
|