If you have issues with the charter, as you obviously do, have you checked whether the charter offers any ways by which you might get them resolved? If so, why not proceed in that manner? Or do you mean to tell us that that charter is just a bunch of rubbish not deserving of your consideration to operate by its provisions whatsoever, including in order to have it changed? [more below] <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 10/1/10, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Is it then an "interpretation" like any other? I don't<br>
> know, I'm not a lawyer.<br>
<br>
</div>I understand you're not a lawyer. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nobody's perfect! And based on that, I'm certainly not trying to be legalistic... and I believe that any group of people has the right to get together and decide the rule they want to live/operate under without a lawyer (by any definition you may accept of such.) </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If you were, it would be easier to<br>
explain that a "plain meaning" or "intent" interpretation that<br>
conflicts with other portions of the Charter and also does so in an<br>
undemocratic fashion is not something to be embraced. Such an<br>
interpretation would only be accepted if it were the only possible<br>
interpretation that made sense of the document as a whole - and you<br>
can't just focus on one phrase in isolation.<br>
<br>
Given that you approve of something that takes away my right to vote,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The democratic majority did, and the democratic majority may revert that if and when the motion to do so is on the table, and someone manages to influence or change their understanding of the issues. I would hope that anyone who cares so much about this in the name of democracy, and has --no doubt-- meaningful arguments to support it, will at some point move it before the demos -- the demos which, at some point in the past, took the decision that you now view as "undemocratic." </div>
<div><br></div><div>On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as opposed to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the arena of democracy at a given point in time. Of course the brightest may go around shouting that people are ignorant, wrong and undemocratic! I prefer leaders who accept and respect people's decision, while keeping at their idea of the good and still looking for the next opportunity to explain it better to the people, etc. so as to generate enough consent among them. The demos changes through time and space, confronting new reality and gaining new perspectives. But that's just my plain, commonsense view. I've been only suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that "due process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its views. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Unfortunately, I have a sense that you may be making this somewhat personal, assuming my own position on the subject matter, while in fact I don't rule out the possibility to vote for an amendment if it comes to that (it is not always just about personal views as it is about where the group is at on some issues at some point in time, about whether there's a sense of shared understanding or consensus, thus it also depends on how the proponents of ideas go about informing others and raising awareness in the group). And I hope someone with your passion will move it and constructively explain to the group why the majority should see things as you do (instead of, say, calling out the demos for being undemocratic on a decision made in good faith, openly and inclusively through the best democratic knowledge and methods practically available to the people at the time). </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
you'll recognize my restraint in merely saying in response that people<br>
should be more careful when they are not trained in an area and their<br>
actions take away the rights of others. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>That story of "rights" (and the nature of their origin as well as the prerequisites of their very existence as enforceable claims) can lead to headaches I'm not kin on having right now. I defer to the past couple of centuries of philosophical debates on the issue. I'm sure if any one side had had the very last word on that, we would have known.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks, and I look forward to considering your (directly or indirectly) motion on charter amendment regarding membership rule and voting.</div><div><br></div><div>Until then for my part, I rest the case.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki</div><div><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> This is a "governance" list<br>
and I hadn't heard the intent was to model ways in which to exclude<br>
others from the most important decisions, such as Constitutions or<br>
charters.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>
P.O. Box 1<br>
Ishpeming, MI 49849<br>
<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>
906-204-2334<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>