So, as chairperson you’re always wrong, no matter what you do! Even the most ethical chairperson (‘integriteit’ as CC calls it) will fail in this system because it is fundamentally unreasonable and demands the ‘independent chairperson’ walk an impossibly fine line.
From the perspective of the late mini-party Campussy (dearly beloved, dearly missed) you want the chairmanship in its current form to be fulfilled by a very weak individual without many opinions.
This simply means that UReka thinks they have less to gain inside the Council than outside of it. Go watch Thank You For Smoking and learn that if you argue correctly, you are never wrong.
UReka may have miscalculated, but those are the facts. :)Basically, Campussy supports a third ‘Campussy Way’.
The reality of the matter is that this is an ordinary power struggle.
CC and the chairman have overplayed their hand and UReka has walked out, the only way that they can block CC.
(This is the Achilles’ heel of UReka’s argument and CC are doing a good job at nailing them on it!In both cases they would represent the Council, only its opinion would be more pluralistic. Evidently, UReka did not feel well represented and so they started their boycott.Alternatively have your internal ‘big chairperson’ (mediator and representative) from the biggest party, but please stop referring to the person as independent! For Campussy there was only one reason to be in the UCouncil: to further our agenda.On the one hand the chairperson must be independent when mediating between council members, between the council and the Executive Board and when representing the council.On the other hand the chairperson is a political operative, usually being a senior member of the largest party (due to their experience) whose interests he also has to serve.