Vengsarkar feels it was just not necessary for the NZC to give voting rights to their captain Daniel Vettori and coach Andy Moles because selection panel already comprises a certain number of people to take decision.
"I feel it is absolutely unnecessary. I feel the captain and coach should be consulted but that's about it. If you already have selectors, three, four, five or whatever number, then why have two more," said Vengsarkar, who was also the chairman of selectors between 2006 and 2008.
Buchanan, however, felt it was a wise move as it would give additional power to the coach.
"It would help build the future of New Zealand cricket by giving additional power to the coach. It is definitely a good move," Buchanan said.
"If you take the current case of New Zealand, the coach is involved not only in shaping the team for the current series in Sri Lanka, but he is also very much involved in trying to shape New Zealand cricket's future," he was quoted as saying in 'Cricinfo'.
Sri Lanka coach Trevor Bayliss also said voting rights weren't essential as long as the opinions of the captain and coach were taken into account.
"If you have got four or five different thoughts on how the game should be played, or on the balance of the team, then that gives more options," Bayliss said.
"The best teams are ones who have more options. Even if the coach and the captain don't get a vote on the selection process, they get a fair hearing from the selectors in 99 per cent of the cases," he said.
"You don't want to have a case where the captain and coach are pulling in different directions. It is all about having a good discussion and reaching unified decisions.
"It is good to have different opinions in selection but once the decision is made then you (captain and coach) support it. So, whether you actually get either a vote or a good hearing, I don't see a big difference," he said.
