I don't think anybody is taking issue with the fact that the person needs to be qualified to meet the criteria that are set. This is establishing the criteria for the position, not the person filling it. I think the rest of the motion deals with what you're talking about and additional items, which certainly make good sense. But the issue I'm raising is that this committee is actually in the position of approving or disapproving the criteria for the position, which is something very different. If that's the case, I'll probably want to move an amendment to that motion.
On May 15th, 2006. See this statement in context.