MKRA wrote:Monlinari had stated twice that the voting process was that 5 of 7 votes were required, incuding all 4 of the non-Rendell appointees.
Now I'm heraing that all 7 are required to agree on the awarding of a license. This only makes it worse than I had understood it per Molinari.
To answer you question netwolf, my quess is that the parties simply narrow them down until they agree on solid applications. Then they begin a process where they scrutinze those and convince each other of the ones to accept. Once they all agree on an applicant, they'll award a license. Yes, there will be more than a few where they don't agree. Here's the problem, however: We're not talking about guilt or innocence on the charge of murder. We're talking money, not lives. There is not that much at stake. If the Rendell appointees absolutely stonewall the non-Rendell appointees regarding, say, IOC's application, then it ends there. There may not be too much of a struggle if there are other good applicants and they can all move on.
To be clear, even as I had undersood the process, Rendell appointees alone could not award a license. Their influence is through refusal.
But, I don't understand how a higher standard -- more votes -- is better than a lower standard. What's to be happy about?
The voting process should be 4 of 7. That simple. This is why I don't understand the continued denials from the Rendell office about how they have no influence over the process when, indeed, the very process indicates that they have a "veto" power over any application.
Its not that all 7 have to agree, its 5 of 7. Rendell had three appointments to the board, the democratics in the house and senate each had one, and the republicans in the house and senate each had one. So, the house and senate members from both parties all have to agree and ONLY one of the gov. appointees has to agree with the other four.
The reason I don't trust it is because these people still have aspirations of their own and if they want to run for office or a job in the next administration of Rendell's then they need to do what he wants. That is where the skepticism comes from.