DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Thing, whole no. 1, Spring 1946

Transcribe
Translate

Thing, whole no. 1, Spring 1946

Page 9

the constitution..is taken before The ...Thing appears, please alter my copy or insert a note to the effect that i wrote in advance of the action.")  So now you know.
Research of a distasteful nature showed that the constitution Crane was apparently commenting on (the Proposed, dated May 1945, evidently) was passed practically in full with the exception of that Royal Family, the Judiciary, elected for life and probably handing the throne down to the eldest son in line.
The more flexible any constitution is, the more initiative encouraged and the less red tape.  Be glad when a guy actually works at an office, bub, and don't put stumbling blocks in his path.
On the other hand, give some horses the bit and they'll gallop cross-field.  Therefore, I disapprove of any embryo like Speer's Suggested, TNFF May 1945.  It's too flexible, like a worn-out two-way stretch that can't hold the curves.  And though I approve of his objectives, I still think Crane's baby could stand a little more flesh on it. 
If you expect specific duties from certain officers, it's just as well to list constitutionally the requisites, as in the keeping of Secretary-Treasurer records from year to year.  I speak from bitter experience.. both of the constitutions I served under were flexible and theirs were Sins of Omission.
The present requisites for President sound fuzzy.  Those of the Official Organ make the Editor just a stooge - but it does prevent TNFF from becoming a private fanzine.  The Directorate is going to  cause a nest of trouble some day; unless NFFF is all over them elves via slow mail while the President strokes his beard in exasperration - the beard grown while he was awaiting a decision from them.
And how come the Vice-President shall "Cast the decising vote in the event of a tie in the Directorate" when there are . five members?  There should be a clause instructing the fifth to stop necking in the back room long enough to vote.
But the election clauses... Just for one little instance, who appoints the "duly appointed tellers" and what double-checking is given the ballots cast.  Too, the deadlines leave little margin for human or postal vagaries.
Today I got this in the mail:  "M..P.. wrote P.. that the constitution (AAPA) was purposely left loose and flexible to give the officers an opportunity to use their own judgment.  It seems to me that this is one of several instances of good proof that it isn't wise to leave the constitution so indefinite. "  Unfortunately, about some people's judgment....
Yet, no matter what contingencies you provide for in the Constitution, from past griefs, unforeseen circumstances will inevitably arise; the more you try to provide constitutionally for all these circumstances, the still more that will follow.
Amen.

Saving...

the constitution..is taken before The ...Thing appears, please alter my copy or insert a note to the effect that i wrote in advance of the action.") So now you know. Research of a distasteful nature showed that the constitution Crane was apparently commenting on (the Proposed, dated May 1945, evidently) was passed practically in full with the exception of that Royal Family, the Judiciary, elected for life and probably handing the throne down to the eldest son in line. The more flexible any constitution is, the more initiative encouraged and the less red tape. Be glad when a guy actually works at an office, bub, and don't put stumbling blocks in his path. On the other hand, give some horses the bit and they'll gallop cross-field. Therefore, I disapprove of any embryo like Speer's Suggested, TNFF May 1945. It's too flexible, like a worn-out two-way stretch that can't hold the curves. And though I approve of his objectives, I still think Crane's baby could stand a little more flesh on it. If you expect specific duties from certain officers, it's just as well to list constitutionally the requisites, as in the keeping of Secretary-Treasurer records from year to year. I speak from bitter experience.. both of the constitutions I served under were flexible and theirs were Sins of Omission. The present requisites for President sound fuzzy. Those of the Official Organ make the Editor just a stooge - but it does prevent TNFF from becoming a private fanzine. The Directorate is going to cause a nest of trouble some day; unless NFFF is all over them elves via slow mail while the President strokes his beard in exasperration - the beard grown while he was awaiting a decision from them. And how come the Vice-President shall "Cast the decising vote in the event of a tie in the Directorate" when there are . five members? There should be a clause instructing the fifth to stop necking in the back room long enough to vote. But the election clauses... Just for one little instance, who appoints the "duly appointed tellers" and what double-checking is given the ballots cast. Too, the deadlines leave little margin for human or postal vagaries. Today I got this in the mail: "M..P.. wrote P.. that the constitution (AAPA) was purposely left loose and flexible to give the officers an opportunity to use their own judgment. It seems to me that this is one of several instances of good proof that it isn't wise to leave the constitution so indefinite. " Unfortunately, about some people's judgment.... Yet, no matter what contingencies you provide for in the Constitution, from past griefs, unforeseen circumstances will inevitably arise; the more you try to provide constitutionally for all these circumstances, the still more that will follow. Amen.