Re: Summary of voting irregularities
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com> writes:
> 1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
> supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
> language in the Constitution.
John: I support your proposal, but that doesn't mean that every
decision that works against it is some kind of grand conspiracy. The
Secretary made a judgement call, where there is no controlling
constitutional language at all. The Secretary is obligated to do this
under the Constitution.
> 3. There has been a suggestion that because of the Secretary's
> inaction, the proposal and the amendment have expired. This places us
> in unknown territory since the Secretary already issued a ballot.
> Furthermore, it leaves us in a nasty situation whereby a single person
> can kill any resolution by ignoring it.
This is incorrect; it would take three people to ignore it, and even
then, it can be brought back into being simply by being reintroduced.
Thomas
Reply to: