Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:11:15 -0700 From: pls@thekeep.com (Paul Schauble) Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] Re: Referral of Charges To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
RegistrLBT@aol.com wrote: >
> In a message dated 2/22/01 1:48:16 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> randerson22@home.com
> writes:
>
> << Tim & govcom
>
> I have been wondering about this vote call and why we are calling
> it in
> the first place. Why when at a convention a resolution or bylaw was
> passed
> and then we were elected to safeguard and implement these bylaws and
> this
> constitution by these same people we now have to have a meeting to
> decide if
> we really have to do what the people at the convention told us to do?
> >>
>
> Dear Bob:
>
> We are having a meeting (and a trial) to do just that; safeguard
> and
> implement the bylaw.
A trial is usually held to determine facts of a case. What facts is this trial to determine that are not already stipulated to?
> 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. Read
> that
> particular bylaw; it does not define who or how the determination is
> to be
> made.
> The removal of an officer for ANY cause can only be triggered by
> an act
> of the GovCom {Sect. VII. VACANCIES}, not some administrative fiat.
In general, wrong. It is plausible to write bylaws that say "If such-and-such then the position shall be vacated" or "If such-and-such then the person shall be deemed to have resigned". Someone wanting to be clear would probably have said one of those. You do not acknowledge that a majority of the GovCom apparently believes the bylaws in question to be of that type.
> It
> can
> only be done through the process laid out in Robert's Rules of Order,
> because
> the bylaws refer to Robert's in all cases to which they are applicable
> {Sect.
> VIII PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY}.
Wrong, and a misrepresentation of the facts. You conveniently omit the immediately following text "and in which they are not inconsistent with the State Party Constitution, or these Bylaws." Certainly our bylaws can override Roberts in any fashion we wanted when we wrote them.
> In the case of an impeachment (which is
> what
> this is), Robert's applies. We didn't follow it back in '96 when we
> booted
> Schmerl & his henchmen, and we spent the next three years in court.
> Not that
> Jason would sue us (he won't).
>
No it isn't. It's the execution of an action called for by the Bylaws. Does Section VIII require that the GovCom vote at the start of each meeting to use Roberts?
And, if I remember correctly, Schmerl and his associates were given due process. A hearing was set for them and they were properly notified. They chose not to attend. Am I remembering incorrectly?
> <<That's our job We have no choice. If we don't perform to the level
> of
> implementation that we were entrusted by the folks at the convention
> than we
> should all resign. >>
>
> 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 two problem: 1. Your "Referral" motion is literally out of order. It cannot properly be made until the meaning of the bylaw provision is settled. You should have first called for a vote on the meaning of the bylaw.2. Any meeting of the GovCom can remove any GovCom member for any stated cause. Being an officer of another party could be cause without the bylaws making them so. Your reading of the provision renders them without meaning. You've done pro per litigation, so you know that no valid legal construction of a text can render part of it without meaning. The only valid interpretations are along the lines that mentioning those specific offenses in the bylaws was meant to give them a higher standing than the ordinary "cause" to be brought before the committee. What other meaning would you assign that section other than calling for immediate removal without needing a vote, in other words, to remove discretion from the matter. Certainly I understood it that way when that section was discussed and passed.
> << 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? I
> have
> nothing to go on from you but this vague sentiment that somehow it all
> should
> have been automatic. 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?
>
I think this falls under the duty of the Chair to keep the organization in compliance with the bylaws. Once the Chair has taken notice of and verified the conflict the person's removal from office is automatic and requires no other action.
The affected person has due process in the usual avenues of appealing the Chair's decision to the GovCom, then to the Convention.
I think this interpretation applies in this case. In other cases, such as the provision prohibiting a person from holding two offices on the GovCom. Here I would argue that the election or appointment that created the conflict is itself invalid as being a violation of the bylaws. This can't apply because Jason's election to ALPInc office wasn't done under our bylaws.
> <<What if we vote not to look at the matter? Have we than filled our
> obligation to the people that in good faith voted for us to safeguard
> their
> interests because we think we know better than them, what's best for
> them,
> better than they>>
>
> Your worries are over. As of this morning, 17 of the 24 eligible
> voting
> members of the GovCom had returned their referrals. The Ayes are 13
> and the
> Nays are 4. By any measure, 13 is a majority of 24, and the measure
> passes.
> The trial will take place.
> The rest of your letter seems to be arguing the case against
> Jason, which
> is fine. The PLACE for that, ultimately, is at the trail. Please be
> there.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Classmates.com]
> Click here for Classmates.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------ 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/