statutory bodies like corporation council, BDA etc need expertise from u. U r into service domain. It become yr duty to offer yr expert opinion in the larger interest of the community and in turn the Nation. It is up to the Authorities to accept or reject yr expert opinion. T.Vidyadhar.
--- On Thu, 22/1/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2781 Re: Disappointed with CAF? To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 22 January, 2009, 7:06 PM Certainly not. A minister could take anybody's advice. Constitutionality would come into question if such informal bodies are used to curcumvent statutory bodies like corporation council, BDA etc. The problem is not constitutionality, but transparency in selection of members of even informal bodies. What would you say if the members of ABIDe are the CM's relatives? More on this later. I am not competent to be an ABIDe member. Regds, Mathew Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel From: TANIAPPA VIDYADHAR Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:32:03 +0530 (IST) To: <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2780 Re: Disappointed with CAF? Having gained certain amount of expertise on governance, if Mathew, Mukunda, Major Kapur, Ramesh Dutt, Mukund, Vijay Menon and Muralidhar rao are invited by a Minister for discussion on a subject , will the invitation becomes unconstitutional ? Will any of the above refuse to join saying that it is unconstitutional ? T.Vidyadhar --- On Thu, 22/1/09, Vijay Menon <[email protected]> wrote: From: Vijay Menon <[email protected]> Subject: CAF2778 Re: Disappointed with CAF? To: "Citizens' Action Forum" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 22 January, 2009, 4:32 PM An extract of the mail below " It has been explained many a time that CAF is not organized to take positions on issues, but merely to promote its objectives, [Transparency & Accountability of governments and people's participation in governance " Then how is it on an open platform on governance , the representative of CAF,as representaing CAF views,from the podium goes brandishing Abide and actually makes comments on its constituents , specifcally an eminent doctor. Is that a view ..or merely again a a personal agenda , under the cover of transparency? Or when a representative goes about a discourse of the kasturirangan commitee report and proceeds to break and critizise it ad nauseum. For such a diatrabe , that too from a podium, as a caf view ,did this is entire stance come from a decison made by the managing commitee..or was it again a personal agenda under the garb of some accountabilty stance. Now if that is not espousing agendas, taking a stance, and that too , to an external audience from a podium , I don't know what is. CAF has and will be taking stances, and these stances and public utterances so far , are not with, I repeat , with a managing committe's approval or a wide general body agreement. The long and short of it is -When X does it(takes a stance),it is in consonance with the CAF objectives , or an honest debate or a considered view ( hang it if actually the managing commitee has not agreed!!) But when Y does it or even suggests a stance..then it is against the constitution, the ethics ,working of CAF!!. Give me a break , lets have some intellectual honesty here. Vijayan menon On Jan 21, 10:57 pm, Mathew Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please refer Vijayan's mail 2709 of 18 Jan 2009 [Disappointed with CAF]. > > Vijayan has taken offence to my statement that this Google group is not > competent to decide matters pertaining to CAF. He says that he is disturbed > by my mail clarifying this position. > > My assertion is merely an explanation of the factual position. Vijayan seems > to imply that this is my way of saying that all decisions in CAF are taken > by me. This is his presumption. This is far from the truth. > > He also makes it appear that it is his understanding that I have said that > this group is unimportant. Where have I said that? He has imputed many other > views or attitudes that I have not even remotely thought of. Why does anyone > want to give such twists? > > If CAF is to take any course of action or a position on an issue, only > either its General Body or its Managing Committee could do so, for decisions > within their competence, and as per our byelaws. This is so, not because I > have any axe to grind, but because CAF is subject to the laws applicable to > registered Societies. > > It has been explained many a time that CAF is not organized to take > positions on issues, but merely to promote its objectives, [Transparency & > Accountability of governments and people's participation in governance – NOT > 'blah, blah, blah'] the ultimate objective being good governance. Hence, any > action that furthers this is welcome. All members have the freedom to > proceed with initiatives pursuant to this goal, with the stipulation of > all-inclusivity. > > This Google group is NOT representative of CAF's membership. CAF has many > members, in fact a very large number, who are NOT members of this Google > group. Further, there are members of this Google group who are NOT members > of CAF. > > It would be nice if Vijayan could spell out how he would like to use this > Google group to take decisions on matters pertaining to CAF. What decisions > would he like it to take? How would the decisions be made? How would these > be implemented? > > This group was NOT started, as a blogging group. It was meant merely as one > of the means of communication between members. It was intended to elicit > views and convey information on actions contemplated, CAF programs, and to > seek volunteers and other assistance. > > Regards, > > Mathew > > On 1/18/09, Vijay Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The mail below disturbed me immensely and I was debating whether to > > write a response at all, or just leave it alone and move on. > > > Move on I may, but I felt I needed to put down a viewpoint. > > > What I am hearing are the following: > > > 1) This discussion group is unimportant and "decisions" are by The > > Managing committee". > > > Surprising comment since the everyday vitality of CAF seems to > > manifest itself in the e-groups and not only at the Century Club > > meetings. > > Also a way of saying… keep talking if u want...I will hear and decide > > according to my own rules. > > > 2) That there is such an archaic view point and unfortunately biased > > view on everything "technological and new" manifested in comments that > > seem to suggest > > > a) That we are not blogging site. > > b) We are not here to promote other "blogging" sites. > > > Comments like these give me an impression of viewpoints so fixed and > > dated and just not in keeping with a changing world and changing > > people. Sounds like desperate attempts at keeping things to the > > familiar so as to protect ones own turf. > > While the real solutions in the new world out there is collaboration/ > > exchanges of ideas /coming together of different groups. > > > c) And the last, but probably not least... > > The kind of bravado statements of "if u don't like the CAF way, go > > elsewhere" > > > For many of these, the justification is things like a "we are > > registered society with rules", "managing committee which will > > decide". > > And of course that "CAF has a particular kind of way of working/ > > engaging with the estates and that is the only way" > > > By extension of logic if you disagree with the other holy cows, it > > also I suppose means. "Find some other platform" > > These holy cows being > > a) CAF will not take a position...That is the CAF way > > b) Everything which is World Bank is bad and anti- citizen > > c) Anything to do with BATF or Abide is anti democracy and anti > > citizen > > > Reminds me of an old adage ..."physician, heal thyself". > > > It is now getting increasingly clear that there are different views on > > how CAF should go forward.Which itself is good because I do not > > believe anything can stay status quo for any length of time. > > So I think unless there is a real appreciation of this and not always > > fallback to the academic argument of charter of CAF...I do not think > > (in my view) we will go forward as an inclusive organization. > > > I believe one of the root issues is the "CAF does not take a > > position". > > While I believe it is a noble and academically interesting direction, > > I do believe there are some inherent contradictions and effectiveness > > issues in following that statement or belief. > > > Enuf said. > > > Vijayan Menon > > > On Jan 12, 11:02 pm, Mathew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > There are well-meaning gentlemen in this Google group, who appear > > > dissatisfied with the functioning of CAF. Some of them want CAF to > > > adopt their views. Some want CAF to espouse specific agendas. Perhaps, > > > they make these statements under the mistaken notion that this Google > > > group could decide matters pertaining to CAF. > > > > May I draw their attention to the fact CAF is a registered Society > > > under the Societies Registration Act, Google or other Internet groups > > > are not the forums where decisions pertaining to the Society's > > > functioning are taken. Decisions of this Society are taken by its > > > managing committee and / or general body. Members are requested to > > > take up issues of their concern with these appropriate bodies. > > > > The methodology that CAF adopts for taking up issues with other > > > stakeholders have been explained several times previously, and there > > > is no need to repeat the same here. Suffice it to say that members are > > > free to anchor programs of their choice, with the stipulation that > > > differing views are provided adequate space in their programs. Those > > > who are dissatisfied with CAF or its methodology or the fact it is not > > > endorsing their views or taking up causes, as per their wishes, are > > > welcome to move to other organizations that would be more amenable to > > > their preferences. This would be the better option rather than staying > > > on and making public statements of their "disappointment" with CAF's > > > functioning. > > > > Further, may I suggest that while CAF may work in close cooperation > > > with any organization, on programs where there is identity of purpose, > > > CAF is not a forum meant to promote other Web or Blogging sites. I > > > therefore request members from to refrain from attempting to > > > constantly draw attention to such sites or suggest that CAF > > > discussions should be carried on, in or through, such Internet > > > spaces. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mathew- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizens' Action Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/citizens-action-forum?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
