Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:40:17 EST From: RegistrLBT@aol.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] Re: Party discipline To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
--part1_2f.1158bc2f.27c751c1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/23/01 2:13:17 AM !!!First Boot!!!, randerson22@home.com writes:
> But more important to my or anyone else's wishes is the need to abide by the
> bylaws. You yourself have said that the people in Tucson think we play loose
> with the bylaws to suit our purposes. and in this case it's about as clear
> as it gets. We will prove that we are just trying to play games with very
> plain language no matter how the outcome of the trial goes. The fact we need
> a trial shows that some are trying to find ways around very plain and simple
> language.
>
Dear Bob, Jason and all:
I'd much prefer that you understand the bylaws before you try to enforce them haphazardly. There is nothing disingenuous or decietful about the interpretation that I intend to present. It is a reasonable interpretation, based on the plain definitions of the wording used. If the termination was meant to be automatic, it would have been worded thus...
"...and such membership shall constitute voluntary termination from the post." or "...and any member holding such post shall be deemed to have resigned"
It doesn't. It says that holding such a post shall be grounds for termination.
Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:
ground n. 2a: a basis for belief, action, or argument, often used in plural.
No other definition comes close, so that "such membership" shall be the BASIS for termination, not shall be terminated. In other words, the clause is NOT self-executing. Under the Section VII on VACANCIES, it is left to the Governing Committee to declare the vacancy. The Chair cannot do it unilaterally, as Eric has demanded. That would be a violation of ...
Section III, Par. 4(e) No member of the Governing Committee or the State Committee, whether elected publicly or in convention, shall perform any act or function which properly belongs to another officer under these Bylaws, and any such usurpation shall be grounds for termination from the post.
In any event, Robert's Rules of Order, which is incorporated in the bylaws, speaks on the subject of removal for cause, and lays out a procedure. We are bound to follow it.
It seems to me that one misconception is driving this useless and divisive debate; that each of these bylaws stands alone. Very few of them do. When read alone, the imagination tends to fill in the blanks. But there really aren't any. The document must be read as a whole. If the clause indicates a removal, then the section on Vacancies is implicated. Since this section requires a vote, then the section Parliamentary Authority is also implicated. I truly don't see why the due process requirement frightens, enrages, baffles and confuses anyone? Explain your objection? I'm not getting it from what I've seen so far.
Tim
--part1_2f.1158bc2f.27c751c1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">In a message dated 2/23/01 2:13:17 AM !!!First Boot!!!, randerson22@home.com <BR>writes: <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">But more important to my or anyone else's wishes is the need to abide by the <BR>bylaws. You yourself have said that the people in Tucson think we play loose <BR>with the bylaws to suit our purposes. and in this case it's about as clear <BR>as it gets. We will prove that we are just trying to play games with very <BR>plain language no matter how the outcome of the trial goes. The fact we need <BR>a trial shows that some are trying to find ways around very plain and simple <BR>language. <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"> <BR>Dear Bob, Jason and all: <BR> <BR> I'd much prefer that you understand the bylaws before you try to <BR>enforce them haphazardly. There is nothing disingenuous or decietful about <BR>the interpretation that I intend to present. It is a reasonable <BR>interpretation, based on the plain definitions of the wording used. If the <BR>termination was meant to be automatic, it would have been worded thus... <BR> <BR> "...and such membership shall constitute voluntary termination from <BR>the post." <BR>or <BR> "...and any member holding such post shall be deemed to have resigned" <BR> <BR>It doesn't. It says that holding such a post shall be <I>grounds</I> for termination. <BR> <BR>Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary: <BR> <BR>ground <I>n. </I>2a: a basis for belief, action, or argument, often used in plural. <BR> <BR>No other definition comes close, so that "such membership" shall be the BASIS <BR>for termination, not shall be terminated. In other words, the clause is NOT <BR>self-executing. <BR> Under the Section VII on VACANCIES, it is left to the Governing <BR>Committee to declare the vacancy. The Chair cannot do it unilaterally, as <BR>Eric has demanded. That would be a violation of ... <BR> <BR> Section III, Par. 4(e) <BR> No member of the Governing Committee or the State Committee, whether <BR>elected publicly or in convention, shall perform any act or function which <BR>properly belongs to another officer under these Bylaws, and any such <BR>usurpation shall be grounds for termination from the post. <BR> <BR> In any event, Robert's Rules of Order, which is incorporated in the <BR>bylaws, speaks on the subject of removal for cause, and lays out a procedure. <BR>We are bound to follow it. <BR> <BR> It seems to me that one misconception is driving this useless and <BR>divisive debate; that each of these bylaws stands alone. Very few of them do. <BR>When read alone, the imagination tends to fill in the blanks. But there <BR>really aren't any. <BR> The document must be read as a whole. If the clause indicates a <BR>removal, then the section on Vacancies is implicated. Since this section <BR>requires a vote, then the section Parliamentary Authority is also implicated. <BR> I truly don't see why the due process requirement frightens, enrages, <BR>baffles and confuses anyone? Explain your objection? I'm not getting it from <BR>what I've seen so far. <BR> <BR> Tim <BR> <BR> </FONT> <br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF> <td width=470><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=180263.1329327.2922596.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700060169:N/A=589981/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/644-1519-1039-0?982906828" target="_top"><img width=468 height=60 src="http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/bn/644-1519-1039-0?982906828" alt="Thousands of FREE Products after Rebate!" border=0></a></td> </tr> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=180263.1329327.2922596.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700060169:N/A=589981/rand=996336104"></td></tr> </table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br> <tt> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR> lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com<BR> <BR> </tt> <br>
<br> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt> </br>
</HTML>
--part1_2f.1158bc2f.27c751c1_boundary--