[19934] in APO-L
Re: Shorten Legislative Session
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Buddha Buck)
Sat Jan 23 11:29:34 1999
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:25:28 -0500
Reply-To: Buddha Buck <bmbuck@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: Buddha Buck <bmbuck@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Jason\"Oscar\"Marmon" <jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL>
of "Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:43:57 EST."
<v03020900b2cf0f372f83@DialupEudora>
> After attending three National Convention and serving as delegate
> and on the Chapter Ops Committee (Toast Song, Rituals, All-Male, you name
> it), I have come up with the following proposal:
>
> Any piece of legislation proposed that is voted down by the
> legislative assembly shall be ineligible for consideration in following
> National Convention, unless proposed by the National Executive Board.
>
> Rationale:
> {has not been written yet}
I think it needs work. I was thinking of something similar, but there
are problems with the basic idea that need to be addressd very
carefully.
1. It has to be a by-laws change, not a resolution. Technically, the
resolutions of one legislative session do not bind the actions of
future legislative sessions.
2. "voted down" is not really a good criteria. If a piece of
legislation does not make it out of committee, can it be proposed at
the next convention? Similarly, if a piece of legislation is voted
down simply because it isn't the rigth time yet, not because of
enduring controversy, should it be forced to wait four years, when it
may be overdue? Extreme example: Technically, the election of members
of the BoD is a piece of legislation. Should a losing candidate (who
was effectively "voted down") be forbidden to run at the next
convention?
3. "piece of legislation" is too specific. If I propose changing "Men
Of" to "True To" this year, and it is voted down, can I propose
changing "Brothers clasp the hands of Brothers" to "Brothers...Sisters"
in 2K?
I'll work on the wording of my proposal, and get back to you all.
>
> I am also interested, if you think the above is a good idea, on
> what you think the rationale should be as I have not written it yet.
>
> Oscar
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
