[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Paul Lehto]

You'll get an "A" from me, rather than a "B" as you describe, by
dealing with the following, which presupposes you are correct in
stating, as I read your reply below, that law, principles of
democracy, political theory, and all other jurisdictions and how they
handle it are irrelevant because administrators here, in this specific
context, have "leeway" to handle things "based on" what you termed
"the best interests of the community" and "on the guidelines and
constraints of the charter."

I would add, though it's not entirely necessary to my response here,
that the "rule" of Reason is something that applies and inheres in
your phrase "based on" and, in any event, is a "rule" of universal
application -- the announced departure from which defines arbitrary
and capricious action.  "Arbitrary and capricious" is admittedly not
something that can be fairly divined from your rule of decision,
namely the "leeway" to act "based on...best interests...[and] the
guidelines and constraints of the charter."  Thus, unless otherwise
advised, I'll assume its applicability here as well.

My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins
I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of
democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the
charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit
the very kind of "leeway" taken here.

Because, if the "leeway" taken is allowed either to undermine, or to
negate, the "constraints of the charter," then those constraints in
the charter aren't actually "constraints" at all, but instead all
we're left with is "leeway" which is inconsistent with "constraint."

This means that, even under the view that throws out all election law
& principles of democracy as irrelevant in favor of leeway in
furtherance of the constraints of the charter, the leeway that would
normally exist simply doesn't exist under this specific factual
context, even though it would exist under many other factual contexts
in the normal course of events.

I'll admit that if  you argue that 'leeway' also exists to interpret
the constraints of the charter, then you'd be out of the logical box I
outline above, but then I'd say you've also escaped all meaningful
"constraints" of the charter as well, leaving you free from all rules,
principles, theories or laws of every kind, including but not limited
to the charter.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/29/09, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 29 Sep 2009, at 13:34, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
>> (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my
>> desire to "win" some potential debate.
>
>
> Often I have found that the only way to understand someone is to agree
> with them.*
> I am not saying that is the case here.  Just a lesson that sticks in
> the front of my mind.
>
> I for one, do think I understand your argument.
> And I think I still disagree with it in relation to the IGC.
>
> We have our rules, and our rules do not prohibit it.
> No  matter what other rules in other places may say.
> No matter what political theory of one ilk or the other may say.
> No matter what the Theory of Pure Law or Jurisprudence may have to say
> about it.
> And no matter what the Platonic Ideal of Governance might be.
>
> Our rules give the coordinator's leeway to make their decisions based
> on the guidelines
> and constraints in the charter and on what they feel is in the best
> interests of the community.
>
> If 4 members seriously don't like any decision, they can appeal it.
> If 4 members really really don't like the coordinators or see a
> pattern of abuse they can appeal for a recall vote.
>
> And if we are ok with it or can at least live with it, we let it go
> and move on, even if we aren't 100% happy.
>
>
> a.
>
> * Had a philosophy professor like that in grad school.  Since i did
> not agree with him, i obviously did not fully understand and got a B
> instead of an A.  The course was on Hume, which was ironic really
> since Hume was charged with being a heretic and, though acquitted,
> never quite understood in his time.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance