John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
