Ken Moellman, Judicial Committee Chair, has issued a definitive analysis of the process by which the Judicial Committee fills its vacancies. It is 27 pages of careful bylaws argumentation, available as a PDF at the link.
Ken Moellman, Judicial Committee Chair, has issued a definitive analysis of the process by which the Judicial Committee fills its vacancies. It is 27 pages of careful bylaws argumentation, available as a PDF at the link.
Ken:
You say, “The body did what it wanted to do.”
But is right? I answer no, it was not right.
Read my opinion. It’s answered there.
he problem is on p. 3. “My personal opinion is that the initial challenge to the chair’s ruling made by Mr. Ciesielski should have been heard by the body, but subsequent actions, specifically the motion by Mr. Starr, did give the body the ability to weigh in. When given that opportunity, the body chose not to do so. ”
An action taken in violation of the rights of an individual member, e,g. to have the rule enforced is void (RONR, 23:6 e). Further, if sufficient members are deprived of the right to vote that it affects the result, that renders the decision void (23:7).
The vacancy was created in violation of those rights and was void in its creation.
People, including presiding officers, are allowed to make mistakes. It’s whether or not the body had a reasonable opportunity to do something that matters. The body absolutely had the opportunity, both in the immediacy of the moment (Starr motion) AND the following day (Purcell motion). And not long after the Purcell motion, there was the challenge to the ruling of the chair on the matter, where if the body believed they were getting a raw deal, they could have taken up the provision to overturn the ruling of the chair. It would have taken a majority to do so, and after a counted vote there was not a majority, much less 2/3rds to actually suspend the rules (which we already knew, because it had failed twice). The body did what it wanted to do.