| 1 |
On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:40:35 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that |
| 4 |
> > the Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Isn't the entire harsh nature to address issues within the council? |
| 7 |
> Meetings being held in private, those in power slacking, etc. Things |
| 8 |
> you previously stated here. So if the document is written with |
| 9 |
> punishments, that's almost expecting the council to misbehave. Or |
| 10 |
> there would be no reason for such provisions. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It was written under the expectation that at least some Council members |
| 13 |
wouldn't do their jobs properly some of the time. It was not written |
| 14 |
under the expectation that the Council as a whole would try to find |
| 15 |
loopholes to avoid facing the consequences of them screwing up. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You'll note that Council members are always free to stand for |
| 18 |
reelection, so the punishment is decided by the developer base as a |
| 19 |
whole, and not by policy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives