At 6:32 AM +0000 6/7/01, fractor@swlink.net wrote:
>John, I disagree 100%
>
>In my mind, there is never a dichotomy or divergence between what's
>fair and what's just.
I am not a lawyer, nor a paralegal. I have little to no experience with "the law" aside from life experience during which some things just rub off. Anyone may feel free to correct me if I'm off base here.
I would opine that the law is not about fairness or justice. It's about procedure. Are all the "i's" dotted, the "t's" crossed? Did everyone follow the law (be it a fair or just law -- or not) and jump through the prescribed hoops? What are the precedents involved? Were they followed or was there inconsistency, deviation. The law is about procedures. That's why guilty people go free on "technicalities." Any similarity between wat the law has wrought and "fairness / justice" is purely coincidental. So let's stop dwelling on fairness and talk about procedure.
Do the ALP bylaws prescribe a procedure to be followed in the event the bylaws are violated? If so, was that procedure followed? You see, Liz has an obligation to follow the bylaws, she does not have an obligation to be "fair."
I don't think the bylaws address expulsion from GovCom for cause. They simply state a prohibition on holding office in a competing party, or languageto that effect. Given no prescribed procedure for handling cases such as Jason's, the handling of the situation seems to have followed a pretty reasonable course. Legal counsel was consulted and a decision arrived at. Action was taken. That action was not in violation of the bylaws. That the action taken seems, on the face of it, "unfair", is irrelevant.
Suppose that Liz had held an evidentiary hearing so that Jason could make his argument that Inc. is not a party and that, technically, he wasn't really in violation of the prohibition. Since there is no procedure for such hearings in the bylaws, might this cause a problem? The potential for this coming back and biting ALP is not limited to just Jason's case. At some future date, some other situation may come up and if the party involved therein is not given a hearing (whereas Jason was, in this hypothetical situation), then ALP has failed to follow the precedent set by holding a hearing for Jason.
For example: The bylaws prescribe the requirements for being a "member of record." Now suppose that a member of record no longer meets those requirements. Let's say that she fails to attend the convention and does not send in a dues payment. In accordance with the bylaws, this person is no longer a member of record. Must GovCom, or Liz, grant an evidentiary hearing before removing this person as a "member of record" in ALP? Had Liz held such a hearing for Jason, ALP might very well be obligated (having established a precedent) to hold hearings for all manner of what should be primarily bookkeeping activities.
Once again: I am just making an observation about the situation from my point of view as a layman. I am not a lawyer.
And, just to be clear, I think that Jason is a great guy and is putting in a lot of effort to repair the rift between Arizona Libertarians. In this, I hope he succeeds. If I had my druthers, Jason would be on ALP's GovCom. That simply is not advisable, given his position with Inc. I think that Liz did the right thing in protecting the interests of ALP. It may not seem fair, but it ain't about fairness.
Mickey
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/