04-07-2015, 11:56 AM
Hi Dougie and all the CWP members...
It does seem ridiculous – but that’s what people have been asking about, Dougie. You yourself said
“That's right. Once you have obtained a SCO code you have eligibility”.
Jim too was relaxed, saying CS would deal with it.
You say:
“You either have to fulfil the bloodline or residency criteria. These are listed at 16.1.1 and 16.1.2. Then you get a SCO code.”
That’s not literally correct though. The back reference from 16.2 is to 16.1 – which says “at least one of the requirements” - one being the residency, one being the bloodline and the other being the ‘SCO’ code.
At present the ‘have parent or grandparent' clause is a red herring. It could say
‘have parent or own swimming pool’
or
‘have parent or recent bus-ticket’.
It would make NO difference to the literal meaning, because only ONE criterion needs to be met, and that can be the ‘SCO’ code!
Even if you say it’s ridiculous, CS officials (or future ones, perhaps) could still do it. Surely it’s best not to have ridiculous things enshrined (great word, George!) to begin with? Perhaps that's a question better put to Jim.
The motion I want to submit and posted earlier (that will reflect this realization with a small alteration) should make the parent/grandparent (whatever the CS members vote for) explicit, ditto for the residency.However, I’ve been reluctant to submit it as it's embedded within constitutional wording that looks like it may change. This is also relevant to Derek’s question.
Question to the CWP: Does all this not suggest that the meeting must be open to motions that are suggested following changes to the constitution that become evident at the meeting, or that have left insufficient time?
Cheers
Walter
It does seem ridiculous – but that’s what people have been asking about, Dougie. You yourself said
“That's right. Once you have obtained a SCO code you have eligibility”.
Jim too was relaxed, saying CS would deal with it.
You say:
“You either have to fulfil the bloodline or residency criteria. These are listed at 16.1.1 and 16.1.2. Then you get a SCO code.”
That’s not literally correct though. The back reference from 16.2 is to 16.1 – which says “at least one of the requirements” - one being the residency, one being the bloodline and the other being the ‘SCO’ code.
At present the ‘have parent or grandparent' clause is a red herring. It could say
‘have parent or own swimming pool’
or
‘have parent or recent bus-ticket’.
It would make NO difference to the literal meaning, because only ONE criterion needs to be met, and that can be the ‘SCO’ code!
Even if you say it’s ridiculous, CS officials (or future ones, perhaps) could still do it. Surely it’s best not to have ridiculous things enshrined (great word, George!) to begin with? Perhaps that's a question better put to Jim.
The motion I want to submit and posted earlier (that will reflect this realization with a small alteration) should make the parent/grandparent (whatever the CS members vote for) explicit, ditto for the residency.However, I’ve been reluctant to submit it as it's embedded within constitutional wording that looks like it may change. This is also relevant to Derek’s question.
Question to the CWP: Does all this not suggest that the meeting must be open to motions that are suggested following changes to the constitution that become evident at the meeting, or that have left insufficient time?
Cheers
Walter