Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:18:46 -0700
From: pls@thekeep.com (Paul Schauble)
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] [Fwd: Re: Draft Bylaw Revisions]
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com


What there is, IMHO, is a presumption that the MOTIONS that changed
the bylaws need to be ratified. What should be presented to the 
the affiliates is the motions to change in the final form that they 
passed the convention. The affiliates then vote on exactly those
motions.

    ++PLS

In a message dated 6/26/2001 9:25:18 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
randerson22@home.com writes: 


   On that same note Tim, without any specific direction 
   as to "en bloc" or not you could easily make the 
   opposite determination. The proper thing do is ask 
   direction from the Exec.com instead of acting 
   unilaterally. 



Dear Bob: 
      On the contrary, one could not. The same language (in fact, the
same 
sentence) which authorizes the convention to amend the bylaws
(individually, 
presumably) authorizes the affiliates to ratify them. There is NO
reference 
to an 'en bloc' vote, for either the convention or the affiliates.
Therefore, 
there is no presumption of an 'en bloc' vote for JUST the affiliates. 
      This is just another 'interpretation of convenience,' not set in 
principle or in consistency. This is what worries me. It should worry
you 
too. If you do manage to ramrod it through, you are then stuck with it.
Think 
about it. 

                                          Tim

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/