Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:53:35 -0700
From: randerson22@home.com ("Robert Anderson")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] [Fwd: Re: Draft Bylaw Revisions]
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com


On that same note Tim, with out 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.


Bob


----- Original Message -----
From: <RegistrLBT@aol.com>
To: <lpz-govcom@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] [Fwd: Re: Draft Bylaw
Revisions]


> In a message dated 6/26/2001 2:47:28 AM US Mountain

Standard Time,
> pls@thekeep.com writes:

>

>

> > BTW, am I the only one bothered by Tim making a

separate ratification
> > vote for every changed word or phrase?

> >

>

> Dear Paul:

>

>        I think not. Liz brought up the subject as

well. However, there is no
> indication in any of the ALP's governing documents or

authorities that
> amendments, which were considered and passed

separately, must be ratified by
> the counties en banc. If that was your intention in

drafting the amendment
> then it should have stated that the county steering

committees must ratify
> them "en banc" or "en bloc."

>

>        Please also remember that 1) if they are to be

ratified en banc, you
> increase the chances that all will be rejected, and

2) the GovCom interpreted
> several amendments that I drafted in ways that I

never envisioned.
>

>                    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/