[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[parminder]

On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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.
>    

Avri

  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.

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).

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.

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.


Parminder
> a.
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
>    
>> On 9/29/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>      
>>> 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."
>>>        
>> 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
>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>> 906-204-2334
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100929/97d1f72f/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