Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:48:31 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_59.c3609b5.286a24ef_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 easilymake 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