Re: Schedule of NCDNHC

From: Kent Crispin (kent@SONGBIRD.COM)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 15:26:54 PST


On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:04:07PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> However, I think your reading of the by-laws is incorrect. The NCDNHC
> charter does elect "up to three individuals to represent [the]
> Constituency on the NC." I do not see how this language proscribes the
> use of alternates, as long as we still have three votes. The clear
> intent of the by-laws is to give each constituency three votes on the
> NC.

The clear intent of the bylaws is exactly as written -- each
constituency to *elect three individuals* to participate on the names
council. The NCDNHC bylaws explicitly elect up to 6 individuals.

> There is no information in the record of the by-laws' drafting, and nothing in
> the language itself, that addresses the issue of alternates.

The clear wording is *three individuals*.

> Whether an alternate
> counts as an alternate or as an "additional" NC representative is a matter of
> interpretation. You have chosen to interpret the rules in a way that effectively
> prevents alternates. Why?

Because that is the obvious meaning of the words.

> We find this unacceptable, given the NCDNHC's clear need for alternates [most of
> our organizations cannot afford full-time, paid lobbyists].

I beg your pardon -- speak for yourself. I find it perfectly
acceptable, as did a substantial portion of the constituency. By any
measure there was not a consensus for your position -- at best there was
a tiny majority.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

--- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:38 PDT