<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000066" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Interesting point.
Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade.
And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter.
So we might have both letter and spirit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Avri<br>
<br>
The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is
about an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted
in the last election, which I read as something which is meant to be
prior to starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing,
un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few
seconds prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no
sense, and I would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an
important document as the IGC's charter. <br>
<br>
And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a
charter amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide
intention as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's
core self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the
processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such
collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand,
stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture
process). <br>
<br>
In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2
months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment
without having had, independently (and this is the key point),
participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the
charter. One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the
technical necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones
principal intent focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's
express and specific requirement of previous commitment and involvement
for casting a charter amendment vote is obviously not met in this case.<br>
<br>
This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt
matter that much either way. However, we have to be clear about
protecting our Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment
voting processes. A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law.<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
a.
On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 9/29/10, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but
the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different
eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other
voting. It states that
"In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that
someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and
unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are
"deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express
preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not
automatic in nature.
Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the
letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I
interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put
the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in
the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more
restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if
well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like
"and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the
purpose of amending the Charter."
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>