this journal is almost entirely¹ friends-only and/or custom-filtered. please comment to this post if you wish to be added².

-m-

---

1. i say "almost entirely" here because i had sloppily referred to it as being friends-only elsewhere, and some pedant ;-) informed me that some items were publically visible. i have reviewed³ said items and made all bar one of them friends-only, but that one will remain visible, as will (naturally!) this one.

2. i am not normally quite as officious and unwelcoming as this post makes me sound. whilst i am spiky, my bark is very much worse than my bite!

3. on 2005/05/21. this post is back-dated to avoid cluttering up anyone's friends' page, and to avoid it being the most recent item visible for any of my lj-friends should they come to my journal, while simultaneously being the most recent item visible for anyone not on my friends list ;-)

"78. When the Council put its governance proposals before the University it did so in the expressed hope that this would produce clarity of decision on the various aspects of the proposals. Events demonstrated that even after a ballot, clarity of decision had not resulted. Part of the problem appears to have been that the conflation of several different issues within a single Grace made it impossible for the Regent House to express its views separately on separate issues. The intention to introduce external members to the Council was combined with a proposal to reduce the proportion of the Council's membership elected by the Regent House and a proposal to introduce members elected by the University's Assistant Staff. Each issue was of sufficient consequence to merit a separate Grace.

79. The Board is pleased to note that the Council is already reviewing these matters. However, it suggests that the Council should at the same time reconsider the voting system currently used by the University for ballots on Graces of the Regent House. Although Single Transferable Voting (STV) has long been used for elections to the Council, the Board is not aware that there has been any review of the STV Regulations after the Wass Report and the consequent introduction of provisions for the amendment of Graces of the Regent House. At the Discussion on 11 March, a speaker argued in detail that the single-winner version of STV may, in certain circumstances, lead to anomalies where a voter ranking an option higher (whilst keeping the order of the other options unchanged) can cause that option to lose. If correct this is a disturbing possibility, particularly given that the Single Transferable Vote Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 121) currently state that a later preference cannot count against an earlier one."

i think one could describe that as a result :-)))

-m-