Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:15:40 EDT
From: RegistrLBT@aol.com
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] [Fwd: Re: Draft Bylaw Revisions]
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com


--part1_89.88d4905.286a395c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 6/26/2001 7:42:43 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
randerson22@home.com writes:


> Again the Sec. was directed by the govcom to make the

> necessary contacts to determine the status of the

> counties apparently that hasn't happen. So to answer

> your question NO the Sec can't make this determination

> alone. The Sec can't do anything alone, they keep the

> party records and are supposed to acted as directed by

> the Govcom and Exec. Com. Acting or making decisions on

> their own is outside their job discretion.

> 

> 


Dear Bob:
       Wrong. Neither the existence nor the affiliation status of Maricopa, 
Navajo and Pima were ever in question. If any were out of compliance with the 
bylaws, then the GovCom COULD have taken the appropriate action at that 
meeting. 
       It has been long and often acknowledged at the GovCom meetings, that 
Pima WAS and IS out of compliance with the bylaw filing requirement. No one 
(including you, Bob) made any motion to enforce compliance under threat of 
disaffiliation. Believe me, I would have remembered and I would have carried 
out such a resolution. Furthermore, upon my report, the convention never 
questioned or disputed the existence or affiliation of Pima, Navajo or 
Maricopa.      
       All the questions about Pima were answered last year by Bob Bushkin's 
letter. I reported on that letter to the next GovCom meeting, which let the 
matter drop, as usual. 
       By the way, as to your understanding of the resolution, what did you 
expect me to report about Pima, other than what was already reported and 
evident to the GovCom?

                   Tim