What do we want when we think about this Election Process?
Different people will tell you different things. I'm probably going to keep coming back to the fantasy of an accountable process that rings with transparency. And if I can't have that, I'll make do with a process being undertaken in line with the constitutions.
But of course we don't all get what we want in life.
I don't know what they are prioritising at Yeshivah when they think about what would make an ideal election process for the community. As we are all seeing (in the not very confidential) letters and emails, 'Confidentiality and Anonymity' seem to be front and centre in lots of their conversations and correspondence. They just can't give us enough. Maybe the problem is that they just can't get any themselves.
We all know that prospective directors were all asked to sign confidentiality agreements and had further emails waved in their faces the day after they did so, threatening them should they breach the anonymity of others who attended the meeting.
One should ask - did the representatives of Yeshivah sign any confidentiality agreements? Did Mr Yudi New, Mrs Nechama Bendet, Mr Kagan and Rabbi Smukler put pen to paper? Should it matter?
Well, I suppose so, in light of the fact that just a little earlier this evening an email came out from the Yeshivah Centre to some 50 recipients. Recipients of the email were apparently all the prospective directors to date. All were listed on the 'cc' line and clearly visible to each other. OK, that seems to qualify as a breach of anonymity.
How could such an event happen in light of the correspondence from Yeshivah Centre, 28 October, calling for 'an abundance of caution'? Was this an unfortunate mistake? Mechanical error? Conspiracy theory? Of course what springs to mind is, between conspiracy and incompetence, go for incompetence every time.
Perhaps we should all remember the further words advising that 'should it come to my attention that confidentiality and anonymity has not been maintained, I may need to make a recommendation to the directors in relation to the suitability of that person's candidacy.'
I imagine that the identities of every one of these nominees, whether they go forward or otherwise will be circulating freely by the time I wake up in the morning. News of the list arrived from multiple directions on my server in a matter of minutes.
I suspect the list will be doing the rounds by the time I sit down to my morning cup of tea tomorrow. I wonder, while the Director's drink their tea, whether in light of confidentiality agreements and previous correspondence they will be giving consideration to anybody's suitability for the job they might be doing - whether candidates or otherwise?
...marcia pinskier
Well, I suppose so, in light of the fact that just a little earlier this evening an email came out from the Yeshivah Centre to some 50 recipients. Recipients of the email were apparently all the prospective directors to date. All were listed on the 'cc' line and clearly visible to each other. OK, that seems to qualify as a breach of anonymity.
How could such an event happen in light of the correspondence from Yeshivah Centre, 28 October, calling for 'an abundance of caution'? Was this an unfortunate mistake? Mechanical error? Conspiracy theory? Of course what springs to mind is, between conspiracy and incompetence, go for incompetence every time.
Perhaps we should all remember the further words advising that 'should it come to my attention that confidentiality and anonymity has not been maintained, I may need to make a recommendation to the directors in relation to the suitability of that person's candidacy.'
I imagine that the identities of every one of these nominees, whether they go forward or otherwise will be circulating freely by the time I wake up in the morning. News of the list arrived from multiple directions on my server in a matter of minutes.
I suspect the list will be doing the rounds by the time I sit down to my morning cup of tea tomorrow. I wonder, while the Director's drink their tea, whether in light of confidentiality agreements and previous correspondence they will be giving consideration to anybody's suitability for the job they might be doing - whether candidates or otherwise?
...marcia pinskier
No comments:
Post a Comment