Fwd: Re: [ILUG] New ILUG commitee
thomasb at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 13:38:12 GMT 2007
On 14/11/2007, Gareth Eason <bigbro at skynet.ie> wrote:
> For the pedantic among us, it has been pointed out that this is in complete
> compliance with the constitution, since by having 5 members we can also state
> truthfully that we have 2. We can also state correctly that we have 1, 3, 4 or
> 5 :-) I would like to suggest that my feeling is that the spirit of the
> constitution is that we have 'at least' 2 persons performing the role of
> Ordinary Committee Member.
With respect, your feeling does not reflect the discussions that were
had when the constitution.
The initial draft I proposed was actually four members, the feeling
was that two were sufficient. At the AGM in June 2000 where the
constitution was adopted, three candidates were proposed for the
committee, and two were elected.
Further, Proinnsias Breathnach when chairman remarked at least one AGM
that if we had more than two candiates, an election would be then have
to be held.
So the precedent seems pretty clear to me - the relevant section of
the constitution has always been interpreted to mean "exactly" 2, not
"at least 2".
More information about the ILUG