Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:40:02 -0700
From: Mark Hernandez

I think you just made my point for me, Lyn.

> > By-laws, like a constitution,
> > can insure certain standards, no matter who is in charge.

And as such, by-laws are not "political". By-laws are simply an agglomeration of words.

People, on the other hand, _are_ "political".

Thus, you do not want to write by-laws that give one side advantages that are unfair to any other side or faction; you simply make the process _accessible_ to anyone organized enough to achieve it, or organized enough to prevent someone else from doing so.

There are only a few people that I would trust to not abuse their positions if elected to a Pacifica seat; people who have _Pacifica_ in their hearts, instead of their own personal and political agenda.

That has been the whole of the problem for us all...those of us who place our own beliefs ahead of the whole, and expect everyone to like it...even when it is direct conflict with the majority.

Mark Hernandez

Lyn Gerry wrote:
> How you run your group is political. By-laws, like a
> constitution, can insure certain standards, no matter who is in
> charge. That is important to us, since whoever is in charge is bad,
> or will become so by virtue of being "put in charge."
>
> Lyn
>

[ from post quoting parliamentarian Lila Hummel: ]
> > Or, to sum up her comments: "By-laws aren't political. They're how
> > you run your group. Anything else is a result of who you elect or put
> > in charge."