Michael Kay said:
> That's an absurd distortion of what I said.
Oh good, I am glad you think it is absurd to. You had me worried for a
minute!
> I would say the process has been corrupted if people are voting when the
> issue does not affect them directly, but only to demonstrate loyalty to
> their business "partners".
Now that you add this "if", I think you have a point. Unless they have
particular expertise or want to ramp up their experience for some future
involvement or are there as a legitimate proxy because someone cannot
attend or are there in an 'honest broker' role, I don't see any need for
people who would not benefit from that standard to partipicate or vote.
But "corrupt" is still not a synonym for "less than ideal" and
unnecessarily provocative.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
