DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | National Fantasy Fan, v. 5, issue 4, June 1946

Transcribe
Translate

National Fantasy Fan, v. 5, issue 4, June 1946

Page 12

that most of you haven't read it thru. "The board may suspend the power of any official for unwise acts, and remove him if he fails to correct the acts" would reduce the wordage 80%. But if the board is made the appointing and accounting body for all other officials, the same power would follow by implication.

IV-4: Courts of law have called "and/or" a verbal monstrosity. Last fall president Tucker construed the expression here to mean "and", which is permissible, and the only interpretation that makes sense. The construction recently announced by president Dunkelberger makes the whole phrase "and/or vote in at least one election during the year" a nullity. I don't think it's a wise provision, but I don't believe in amending the constitution by such insupportable "interpretations". I don't think it's a wise provision, because it forces every member to vote, though we may have some members who wish to give us their support in the way of dues and perhaps some work, but either don't keep up with the political picture, or love evvabody so evenly that they don't fell like voting.

IV-4-a: If the secretary can extend "special consideration" subject to board review, how binding is the constitution on the administration? Why not frankly leave such things up to the board by saying nothing about them in the constitution?

IV-5: A nice example of sweetness-and-light wording that we'd never bother to change if we were just amending things. But I think the word "expel" would be plainer than "membership shall be subject to revocation for cause."

V-A: Here's that booby trap that threw us last autumn. Elections shall be held the "first of November." How do you hold an election on a particular date when ballots are mailed out and mailed back over a period of weeks? Evans told me he was suprised to see that wording: he intended that the ballots should go out with the October official organ. The whole idea of having the officers change over just at the end of the year, immediately after which all dues must be paid (they can't be paid before; you couldn't be sure of eligibility for renewal), is like changing horses in midstream. You know about the trouble in the secretary's department early this year. What we should do is elect officers in the middle of dues-year, so that the machine is functioning smoothly when it's time to persuade the boys to shell out. (This'd also avoid letting people vote who are about to let their memberships lapse.)

V-A-1: The requirement that the October official organ must be in the mail by 10 October is purposeless unless the ballots are mailed out with it. Even so, I see little reason to say that the October organ must be out of 10 Oct, just because the polls close 10 Dec, exactly two months later. Heck, let it go out 5 Oct of 15 Oct; what does it matter as long as there's plenty of time for ballots to be returned?

12

Saving...

that most of you haven't read it thru. "The board may suspend the power of any official for unwise acts, and remove him if he fails to correct the acts" would reduce the wordage 80%. But if the board is made the appointing and accounting body for all other officials, the same power would follow by implication. IV-4: Courts of law have called "and/or" a verbal monstrosity. Last fall president Tucker construed the expression here to mean "and", which is permissible, and the only interpretation that makes sense. The construction recently announced by president Dunkelberger makes the whole phrase "and/or vote in at least one election during the year" a nullity. I don't think it's a wise provision, but I don't believe in amending the constitution by such insupportable "interpretations". I don't think it's a wise provision, because it forces every member to vote, though we may have some members who wish to give us their support in the way of dues and perhaps some work, but either don't keep up with the political picture, or love evvabody so evenly that they don't fell like voting. IV-4-a: If the secretary can extend "special consideration" subject to board review, how binding is the constitution on the administration? Why not frankly leave such things up to the board by saying nothing about them in the constitution? IV-5: A nice example of sweetness-and-light wording that we'd never bother to change if we were just amending things. But I think the word "expel" would be plainer than "membership shall be subject to revocation for cause." V-A: Here's that booby trap that threw us last autumn. Elections shall be held the "first of November." How do you hold an election on a particular date when ballots are mailed out and mailed back over a period of weeks? Evans told me he was suprised to see that wording: he intended that the ballots should go out with the October official organ. The whole idea of having the officers change over just at the end of the year, immediately after which all dues must be paid (they can't be paid before; you couldn't be sure of eligibility for renewal), is like changing horses in midstream. You know about the trouble in the secretary's department early this year. What we should do is elect officers in the middle of dues-year, so that the machine is functioning smoothly when it's time to persuade the boys to shell out. (This'd also avoid letting people vote who are about to let their memberships lapse.) V-A-1: The requirement that the October official organ must be in the mail by 10 October is purposeless unless the ballots are mailed out with it. Even so, I see little reason to say that the October organ must be out of 10 Oct, just because the polls close 10 Dec, exactly two months later. Heck, let it go out 5 Oct of 15 Oct; what does it matter as long as there's plenty of time for ballots to be returned? 12