On 11/2/2012 12:09 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> "if the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year term,
>> the selecting body may, at its discretion, immediately select a
>> replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim
>> process defined in Section 3.5.1."
The document doesn't define in detail what constitutes "unable to serve", but
Rhat is the specific and entire point. We have a substantial set of
formal details, but we don't have that one.
it clearly means via some form of incapacitation (death, severe illness,
etc). Obviously, the intent of leaving un-stated exactly what constituted
"unable to serve the full two-year term" was that it would be determined by
common sense, applying the "unable to serve" test to the facts at hand.
Your certitude about the intent of the framers and ratifiers of these
formal documents is appealing, but unfortunately unfounded, since there
is no documentation about that intent.
Worse, it's not clear to me that even knowing their/our intent would
suffice, in terms of being subject to external review for due process.
He's clearly "unable to serve".
So you believe. I might also. He might or might not.
I find it hard to see how someone who will
not respond to _any_ form of communication, over a period of months, is
'[]able to serve'.
And more's the pity that our documents didn't cover such constructive
resignation by voluntary vacancy.
If the _only_ way to determine that someone is "unable to serve the full
two-year term" is via the recall process, why didn't the document say that?
There is just the bald statement that 'if someone is "unable to serve", a
replacment can be selected using the same process that selected them'.
The problem is that the document doesn't specify anything about the
conditions that define being unable to serve. The nature of this sort
of formal document requires such specificity.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net