Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:52:12 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>It's understandable that a layperson could make this mistake, because
>bylaws do superficially look like a constitution of some sort.  It is
>utterly amazing that someone with any legal training could make such a
>mistake.  But the fact is, Karl's theories about this are pure legal
>fanatasy.  Article VI, Section 2(g) only expresses a pre-existing fact,
>and it is there just to be absolutely sure that people understand it:
>The board can do anything it deems necessary, regardless of what the
>DNSO decides. 

It is not a simple as that.  The Board is bound by its own bylaws even
though it has the power to change them.  If the bylaws state that a
certain thing must happen before they decide something and that does
not happen then they are in breach of their bylaws.

A individual member of the Board could then file suit against them for
having breached their own bylaws and have a good case.  Even if the
Board later changed the rules Judges do not like retrospective changes
very much.  

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html