Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 01:33 AM 3/24/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Most of these suggestions seem fine, but...
>
> Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> ...
> >  >>Replace section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph beginning "If
> > some or none..." with:
> >
> > "The confirming body may ask for additional information about a nominee
> > from the Nomcom to assist them in their deliberations. However, both the
> > confirming body and Nomcom should refrain from discussions of the
> > availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible 
> candidates
> > for the position."
>
> I have no problem with this as *additional* text, but I would object
> to removing the original "If some or none..." paragraph, which I
> believe is very necessary in its present form.
>
>    Brian

Hi Brian -

The text removed was:

> If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
>            body are confirmed, the confirming body continues to consult
>            with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
>            all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
>            nominating committee's rationale for the slate.  During the
>            course of the consultation the nominating committee may
>            re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in any
>            way.


I find this paragraph to be particularly problematic.  The paragraph as 
written would tend to make the confirming bodies adjuncts of the Nomcom 
rather bodies with their own purpose.

Both the Nomcom and the confirming body have distinct and separate duties 
in the nominating process.  Having an on-going discussion about the 
relative merits of individual candidates seems to me to be a problem with 
separation of powers. If a confirming body chooses to not confirm a 
candidate, the rationale should be clear - i.e. the confirming body was 
unable to find a majority of members who were willing to confirm.  The 
individual members rationale for deciding not to confirm are relevant to 
the discussions within the confirming body, but are inappropriate to be 
shared outside that body.  [The confirming bodies are not made privy to the 
Nomcom discussions on the candidates, they're just provided with the output 
of that discussion.  It seems inappropriate for discussions/debate to be 
shared back from the confirming bodies to the Nomcom.]

Also, allowing the Nomcom to re-shuffle the slate seems also to be 
problematic as candidates are confirmed or rejected as individuals.

The Nomcom should offer its best candidates, make its case, and permit the 
confirming bodies to do their due diligence.  If a confirming body chooses 
not to confirm a candidate,  there shouldn't be an argument or discussion 
between the confirming body and the Nomcom as to whether either the Nomcom 
selection or the confirming body rejection was the right answer - that 
would denigrate the integrity of both processes and tend to lead to enmity 
between the two bodies.  If a candidate fails of selection, the Nomcom 
should then provide its next candidate.  Its probably useful, but shouldn't 
be required, for a confirming body to provide some general guidance as to 
why a candidate failed - it may be the confirming body may not have 
consensus on the reasons they failed to confirm, just that the candidate 
was not deemed acceptable.