Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:33:00 -0700
From: randerson22@home.com ("Robert Anderson")
Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: Referral of Charges
To: RegistrLBT@aol.com, lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <RegistrLBT@aol.com>
To: <randerson22@home.com>; <lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Referral of Charges
> In a message dated 2/22/01 1:48:16 AM !!!First Boot!!!, randerson22@home.com
> writes:
>We are having a meeting (and a trial) to do just that; safeguard and
> implement the bylaw. The fact that the bylaw exists {Sect. III ORGANIZATION
> of the PARTY, Par 4(b), prohibiting a member from being an officer of another
> political party}, does not in and of itself trigger his removal.
Why? What part of SHALL be terminated don't you seem to understand.To
maintain my Second Amendment metaphor. I see knowere that it say have a
trail, it say's terminated. If there were any disputed facts I would
understand, but Jason has not disputed any of these. As far as I can tell He
is no longer a member of the Gov Com. Understanding that I'll be the first
to renominate him as soon as he is no longer in violation of Sect.lll
Par.4(b). And were does it say that this is not self triggering. Or are you
just stating your opinion. Because in my opinion it is. SHALL is a pretty
simple word to understand and I sure don't see it meaning all the hoop
jumping your selling.
> Read that
> particular bylaw; it does not define who or how the determination is to be
> made.
You are correct. it is based on facts. Thank you for making my case for self
executing. It does it all by itself. If it were to have meant we needed a
big hoopla it would have called for it. It's the KISS principle.
> The removal of an officer for ANY cause can only be triggered by an act
> of the GovCom
That's not how I read it. Please show me were it say there need to be an ACT
by the govcom in the below section.
4) TERMS in OFFICE
(d) No member of the Governing Committee or of the State
Committee, whether elected publicly or in convention, shall be permitted to
be an officer of member of any other organized political party during their
term, and such membership shall be grounds for termination from the post.
> You will have your chance to argue that. So will Jason. Then, after a
> thorough airing, you and everyone else on the GovCom (except Jason) can vote
> your conscience. What problem do you have with that?
I have no problem with that at all Tim. But I don't see any need for any
voting other than to fill the vacancy. Unless Jason is going to dispute the
facts. Or are you saying that there will be talk and debate about if we
should ignore our duty to the bylaws and pretend 4(d) isn't there.
>
> << We continually bitch at the Government about how they treat the bill of
> rights and here we find ourselves acting no better. >>
>
> That depends on your interpretation of acting better. How do you envision
> the process working? How should his termination have been executed?
If the person in question is not disputing the facts than immediately
>I have
> nothing to go on from you but this vague sentiment that somehow it all should
> have been automatic.
That's how 4(d) reads This would be a different story if Jason were saying
that he was not in violation but that's not the case. He has openly admitted
that he is an officer in another political party.
>It can't be. Do you really want the 'arresting officer'
> to determine how long the sentence should be, write it in his ticket book,
> and put you in the paddy wagon to Perryville?
It's not even the same thing. Jason has already pleaded guilty and in doing
so has trip a wire in the bylaws that removes him from office. You know
SHALL. To use the above example it would be more like him before a court
pleading guilty to a crime that has mandatory sentencing. It really is out
of anyone's hands. If he freely chooses to do the crime than he does the
time. I mean this is as simple as him stating he has resigned from Inc.and
we don't need to be doing this. But to go this route that somehow we can
argue or debate past this hard and fast bylaw is doing a great disservice to
the people that elected you to caretake the party bylaws and constitution.
There is no middle ground here it's black or white, we do our jobs or we
don't. To think that we through some higher thinking can second guess what
the convention floor passed in very plain terms is pretty arrogant.
Bob
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/