Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:04:32 -0700 From: cartero@nguworld.com (Mike Dugger) Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] Party discipline To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
At 09:57 AM 2/22/01 -0700, Ernie wrote: >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.
The point is that the bylaws, while specifying what should be done in a case such as Jason's, are vague as to the means of doing so. Removal from office, in any type of organization I know of, requires at least the formality of a fact-finding. Removal of a GovCom member is not the ordinary day-to-day business of the party which should be enforced strictly at the judgement or whim of the Chair as Paul seems to interpret it. It is as serious a matter as could likely be considered by the party. As such, it MUST be attended to by the members of the committee who, along with the state convention, are the only entity qualified to enforce the removal of one of their own. Even if you hold to Paul's interpretation, I would argue that Liz has more than fulfilled her duties in this regard. She first called a meeting of the PriCom to consider the matter and they, in turn, have now referred it to the GovCom to weigh the evidence and render a final decision as to Jason's status. This, in my opinion, is quite in keeping with both the letter and spirit of the bylaw in question, as well as any deference to Robert's. If Jason were merely hired help I would agree that it is Liz' job to hire and fire him. However, Jason is an ELECTED member of the board, whether by the convention or the board itself, and as such he is entitled to a hearing before the board to determine whether he should or should not be removed for any cause. Furthermore, I argue that only the GovCom, or the Convention, has the authority to effect a removal from the governing board. That particular bylaw lists a clear cause for removal, but it merely directs the GovCom to make the determination of whether that stricture has been violated and therefore warrants enforcement. The bylaws are paper and are therefore unqualified to make such a determination. Finally, I would like to make a comparison of two situations which exist within ALP and ALP, Inc. For us there is Jason's status. For Inc. there is the status of John Zajac who is just as unqualified to hold his (allegedly statutory) office. In our case, when Liz learned of the situation she promptly set in motion a process for dealing with it. On the other hand, Peter Schmerl is content to allow Zajac to remain in his position despite his just as obvious disqualification for holding it. In any event, I can't even imagine that Peter would presume to have the dictatorial power to unilaterally remove an officer of Inc., as some here argue that Liz does in ALP. This I find disquieting.
- Mikey
ps. As the situation currently stands I will vote to remove Jason from his position. I will reluctantly do so as an unpleasant duty which I volunteered for when I sought a place on the committee. I will not seek to evade this responsibility by contending that it rests entirely with someone else.
------------------------ 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/