When we went to Anihiem (sp?) that August to witness how the LNC would treat their bylaws, we got just this type of example,... depends on your interpretation of "is" is.
When the LNC (the Govcom of National) wimped out and wouldn't support the clear language of their bylaws and just do what they said and instead went to the 'national member w/ Az addresses' voting bullshit, I was already done with these guys,.. for they lacked honor and integrity.
I had a long and frank conversation with Tim last night on the phone and think I understand his position and why. And as much as I consider Tim a close friend, I have to say that I believe that he is wrong. Fasination with Robert's Rules of Order has its place and this is not it. The argument to put Robert's over our own bylaws and constitution must be made with omitting certain words and phrases when reciting our own party documents.
I think Paul has made the point well. And I do not appreciate the "interpretation" of our documents absent the accual wording so as to make a one sided case for the elivation of Robert's to the level of some kind of gospel.
Dugger and Tim are of the mind that we are in a stronger legal position with this method I guess. But, I argue that we are not. We will set a precident that will someday, once again, will have a Schmorg standing up at one of our conventions waving a copy of Robert's and saying how it trumps our party documents and point to when and where the Govcom proved it.
I have enough problems with a few pages telling me the structure of the party, I sure as hell don't need a few hundred more pages telling me what I can and can't do on top of that. Our party documents are supreme. And it is my opinion that that is what the refered to sections of our party documents say.
My biggest concern started with the interpretation of the word "shall" in place of the accual word. This effort showed extreme bias and was a disservice of anyone, certainly the Secretary of the Party.
The fact that the majority of the Govcom has voted for a trial gives me no comfort since I do not believe that it should have been allowed by ruling it out of order.
In hind sight I wish that Powell (or anyone even now) would have filed a complaint that said that they demanded that the bylaws be upheld and that the state chair just do their job and enact the clear language of the bylaws and boot Jason,... THEN Tim, Mike, Ted, Jason and whomever owuld bring their complaint of this action to the Govcom to determine if Liz acted in accordance with the bylaws. IMO she would clearly be supported by our own party documents and ANY court in the land. Hell, the supremeness of our party documents is what we won in Myers' ruling IMO.
I fear that even the desired result of upholding our party documents and the removeal of a high ranking officer of ALPink from our Govcom will not address the problems I see created by the use of this method.
.02 Ernie