>- 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.
It is my opinion (value = .02) that any vote NOT to oust Jason for stipulated cause should be ruled "Out of Order".
Jason,
I too would prefer that you resign your position in ALPinck (I like Haggard's spelling better :) But, I can find no other out other than voluntarily resigning from ALP or being removed. My only concern is the integrity of the party documents and the responsibility of the party officers to uphold them. You'll never hear me doing anything about a bylaw that I disagree with other than arguing for it to be changed. Clintonesque interpretation just plain pisses me off and makes me wonder if I'm in the right place. That said, I do believe that the arguments made by some that there is a process that they feel needs to be adhered to is not a malisious attempt to do any evil, but a disagreement on the responsibilities of the Govcom and how their duties are to be carried out. My concern is that even the POSSIBILITY that a vote COULD be to retain you in office with the clear meaning of the bylaws such as it is, is clearly in violation of what is clearly the intent of Libertarians that voted in convention and a dangerous precident.
I have confidence that the bylaws will be upheld (and to make sure, we need to make sure that the meeting rules allow for all voives and votes to be heard and counted by e-mail or whatever,... Right?)
I also will argue that this matter have a bylaw and/or constitutional correction to make the process VERY F'ING CLEAR in the future that there is NO F'ING possibility that the bylaws can be ignored or sidesteped hwen the facts are clear and undisputed,... F'ING DUH.
Ernie