stuff not in the section labeled "appendix", i assume.
You mean like the following from the body of the constitution:
Originally Posted by USACFC Constitution (version on the website)
The officers and the representatives of the host school, with the majority approval of the member schools, will determine competition format. (See appendix for the preferred format).
that specifies majority approval of member schools for the format?
Note that the quoted text is from the version of the constitution available on the USACFC website, which is demonstrably NOT the approved constitution. I believe I have a copy of the official one around somewhere, but don't know exactly where. Since this text is unlikely to have changed I haven't tried to locate the official document for the purposes of this post.
The format may not be in the constitution, but the approval process for the format most certainly IS. And hasn't been followed this season.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
that specifies majority approval of member schools for the format?
Note that the quoted text is from the version of the constitution available on the USACFC website, which is demonstrably NOT the approved constitution. I believe I have a copy of the official one around somewhere, but don't know exactly where. Since this text is unlikely to have changed I haven't tried to locate the official document for the purposes of this post.
The format may not be in the constitution, but the approval process for the format most certainly IS. And hasn't been followed this season.
-B
like i've actually read it
i'm just guessing about what he might be thinking.
Note that the quoted text is from the version of the constitution available on the USACFC website, which is demonstrably NOT the approved constitution. I believe I have a copy of the official one around somewhere, but don't know exactly where. Since this text is unlikely to have changed I haven't tried to locate the official document for the purposes of this post.
That part quoted has not changed between the two versions of the constitution.
The format part of the constitution has changed.
And oiuyt has quoted the correct passage by which I claim that there should be a vote on the matter.
stuff not in the section labeled "appendix", i assume.
That might scare me even more-- That means that the officers (and not even all of them need to discuss and decide, just the Powers That Be) can decide that the host club suddenly needs to do things without warning, that member squads need to do new things, that the entry fee will happen without input from the host club. Or that they could throw entirely new things into the appendix. Also, let's point out (again) that B4 from the appendix ruling that "each competitor must use equipment that meets the rules of the USFA. The only exception is that names are not required on the uniforms." has been left out. Granted, when I emailed Jon Moss about it, he said that this would be true this year, but I imagine there'll be someone who tries to fence sabre without an overglove or something odd will happen, and we won't have a rule that was made obvious to the new teams.
Originally Posted by oiuyt
Note that the quoted text is from the version of the constitution available on the USACFC website, which is demonstrably NOT the approved constitution. I believe I have a copy of the official one around somewhere, but don't know exactly where. Since this text is unlikely to have changed I haven't tried to locate the official document for the purposes of this post.
The format may not be in the constitution, but the approval process for the format most certainly IS. And hasn't been followed this season.
Ah yes, but I have mine out. All the sections that aren't on the website have been carefully highlighted. That's in there. Third of a page down on page 3, for those of you who are keeping track at home with your original constitution.
BTW, "integrity" is no longer the mission of the USACFC. It was back in the day, but not so much anymore. Just thought everyone should know.
BTW, "integrity" is no longer the mission of the USACFC. It was back in the day, but not so much anymore. Just thought everyone should know.
I think that's more than a bit unwarrantedly harsh. Unless, of course, one of the changes was to a mission statement (or some such) mentioning integrity (or, I suppose, if you feel that the association is now not trying to prevent fissioning).
I think that the changes being implemented are being conducted with the best of intentions.* I disagree with the process being followed. But I don't think that it's a corrupt process, by any reasonable stretch of the word.
-B
* Of course we know where that road leads. And (mixing idioms for a minute...) what ARE we doing in this handbasket?
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I think that's more than a bit unwarrantedly harsh. Unless, of course, one of the changes was to a mission statement (or some such) mentioning integrity (or, I suppose, if you feel that the association is now not trying to prevent fissioning).
I think that the changes being implemented are being conducted with the best of intentions.* I disagree with the process being followed. But I don't think that it's a corrupt process, by any reasonable stretch of the word.
-B
* Of course we know where that road leads. And (mixing idioms for a minute...) what ARE we doing in this handbasket?
The Mission statement as in the original constitution includes "integrity." The one on the website does not.
Although I find it funny you think I might actually be that brazen publically online. Silly boy; that's for PMs!
Edit: Also re: the handbasket--- SHHHHH, don't talk about it. My boyfriend reads this sometimes....... ; )
Anyone have an electronic copy of the (approved) constitution that they know where is and can post? I've checked two of the most obvious places where I might have stashed one without luck. I'll continue checking other places as they occur to me. I'll also start looking around for my hardcopy version.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
This was emailed out by Jon Moss on Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:37:43 -0500. If memory serves, it is identical to the one agreed upon late summer/early fall of 2003. I would have examine my deep archives to prove this, however.
If anyone wants, PM me and I will forward the email that contains this document.
Originally Posted by noodle
<-- Added smilies too 