[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Mawaki Chango]

Conflict of interpretations? That happens. As far as I can remember, what
you call "not correct... interpretation" was the idea at the moment of
drafting the charter. Is it then an "interpretation" like any other? I don't
know, I'm not a lawyer. Can it be wrong from certain perspective? Of course,
it can (just as it can be right from some other people's perspective.) And
again, I'm sure there are effective ways to address those tensions you see
'within and without' the charter. But until then, it is the charter we have,
our charter to all of us --the outcome of a democratic process (which, most
certainly, does not make it a perfect product.)

Mawaki

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/30/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In conclusion, for my part, I'm not partaking in a debate as to whether
> that
> > rule is a perfect or the best one. If people want to see it changed, I'm
> > sure the charter provides for ways to initiate such action. I hope it's
> > understood that it is not my intent to speak against a motion for
> amendment.
> > I believe the problem initially was whether with respect to our latest
> > decisionmaking procedures we were following our charter provisions as
> they
> > stand now (and I was commenting on a particular interpretation of the
> rule
> > which did not reflect, in my view, the positive spirit in which it was
> set
> > up. Nevertheless, even with the right interpretation, the rule can still
> be
> > challenged and changed.)
>
> My comments challenge the interpretation of the "rule" -- I contest
> the very meaning you and others assign to it because it conflicts with
> other portions of the charter and important principles of democracy
> and legal construction.
>
> Due to such conflicts, among the range of interpretations available,
> the one that results in absurd losses of rights to a population that
> goes well beyond a hypothetical population of "gamers" (who, should
> have an equal vote anyway) and so is unreasonable, unfair AND (most
> importantly) not the correct or the best interpretation of the
> Charter.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> >> P.O. Box 1
> >> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> >> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> >> 906-204-2334
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-2334
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101001/37d1c32f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t