On the following:
As a sitting CRS Councilor, how will you maintain separation between your Delegate responsibilities and your security policy perspectives within the CRS?
I am not looking for the specifics and ins and outs of the CRS, what I am looking for is some detail on how you will keep duties separate and how your approach to the Delegate, to re-word it the way I meant it slightly, and the policies you will implement and adhere to as Delegate, will differ from your work in the CRS.
With the deepest of respect to you, that is the question, you’ve posted the campaign, we’ll ask the questions, rather than you suggesting we change the wording of the questions.
I’m not sure where this happened? Although I was more suggesting that the Assembly consider the question of the Delegate serving on the CRS and whether it wanted to change the law to better suit a different system, if you were referring to my original answer to the same question:
Additional detail would just be the specific in-and-outs of CRS discussions, which is why I left it like that.
With the deepest of respect to you … what are you talking about?
The question was how Henn would keep their roles as Delegate and CRS member separate. Their answer was that they would not involve themselves in CRS discussions except at request. You don’t have to like the answer but I genuinely do not see where anybody refused to answer the question.
I am talking about rather than picking holes in the questions of the legislator asking the question, which I have every right to do, by the way, rather than suggesting this, that or the other, don’t put words in my mouth, get on with it and answer the question.
He said
“I will not be starting or involving myself in CRS discussions unless specifically asked to by another member. Perhaps a good question for the Assembly is whether the Delegate should be privy to those discussions/channel at all, but as it stands, I will keep my access, and this is my solution.”
What that means is he won’t be involving himself in the CRS unless another member asks him to get involved and perhaps the assembly should discuss whether the Delegate can be involved in the CRS. He answered your question in the first sentence.
“Perhaps a good question for the Assembly is whether the Delegate should be privy to those discussions/channel at all, but as it stands, I will keep my access, and this is my solution.”
Don’t put words in my mouth, man, get on with it, spit it out.
It is a suggestion that that is what the question should have been and it used space that could have been used to answer the question. This is the final time I am replying just to explain the same thing again, it’s not my problem if the rest of you can’t read.
Can we all just try to be a bit more respectful? I realize I may have contributed to making this election more tense and toxic than it needed to be, but still.
For example, the comment below feels extremely unnecessary:
Thank you, for your confidence, trust, and support.
My number one objective has been, and will remain, service to the South Pacific and to the Coalition, and your collective decision over the past two weeks is the highest honor I could receive. I will do everything in my power to not betray that trust, and to fulfill the office upon which I am soon to enter. It is the least I can do, now.
As always, I am standing by for questions, comments, concerns, and feedback.
Yours Truly,
ProfessorHenn / Sporaltryus
Delegate-elect of the South Pacific
… what are you talking about?