[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

Tue Sep 29 15:40:36 EDT 2009

Paul and all,

  You again beat me to the punch.  >:)  Well done though.  It's
clear that the Charter is for "Show" only IF "Leeway" can overide
the principals there within.  Ergo no official vote has effectively
taken place, rather an exercise or "Poll" was taken in the name
of a vote.  As such than, the "Poll" cannot ligitimately be given
credance IF again "Leeway" is so exercised or fully recognized
accordingly.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 29, 2009 1:49 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>
>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

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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