I am a sucker for any political procedure that runs back to the 17th c., out
of my fondness for history.
In this case, the chief news item is how practical people were 400 years
ago. The same issues that confronted us today, confronted them then.
In arranging for practical business affairs that needed to include mutual
support between the commons and the crown, this was treated as a
negotiation. The commons needed a man on the Board of a practical project
that affected the whole community. The crown also needed a commoner on the
Board. What's best for both parties is a representative both parties are
comfortable with. If you allow the crown to choose from a slate of
commoner-approved nominees, you drastically reduce the crown's excuse that
the commoners stuck them with a dud who couldn't handle the job.
If this is the current provision in UCD's bylaws (which I haven't found the
time to read, and won't find soon), then I think it's a great provision that
makes perfect sense. There may be things about UCD that are broke, but this
is not one of them.
-- Tony West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Wattles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. The same act [is] to provide that grand-jurymen may be chosen by and
for several parts or divisions of each county respectively, in some equal
way ...; and that such grand-jurymen for their respective counties may at
each assize present the names of persons to be made justices of the peace
from time to time, as the county hath need for any to be added to the
commission; and at the summer assize [they are] to present the names of
three persons, out of whom the king may prick one to be sheriff for the
next year.
It's the best reference I can find off the cuff. It was standard practice
in the middle ages into early modern. And continued, for instance, in the
current procedure for picking a new senator from Wyoming.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
