Who determines what is or isn't a typo, though? And where is the oversight? I'm incredibly uncomfortable with giving someone the power to change our laws unilaterally. The method for amendment is not odious or complicated, and from discovering one to fixing it currently takes less than a week.

More broadly, I'm dismayed to discover that we do not - in strict legal terms - have a legitimate Charter in force anymore. I don't know what Glen unilaterally decided to change. You don't. No one does. It wasn't disclosed, it wasn't voted on. Glen literally just decided to change the law according to what he thought was best.

It was criminal activity on his part.

Well -- first, re-numbering the charter is hardly changing the law.

I'd also suggest that fixing a typo isn't changing the law either. And by typo -- I mean when there is a misspelling that is corrected or re-numbering that does not change the wording of the law.

(04-30-2014, 08:04 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Well -- first, re-numbering the charter is hardly changing the law.

I'd also suggest that fixing a typo isn't changing the law either. And by typo -- I mean when there is a misspelling that is corrected or re-numbering that does not change the wording of the law.

Exactly.

(04-30-2014, 02:09 AM)Belschaft Wrote: More broadly, I'm dismayed to discover that we do not - in strict legal terms - have a legitimate Charter in force anymore. I don't know what Glen unilaterally decided to change. You don't. No one does. It wasn't disclosed, it wasn't voted on. Glen literally just decided to change the law according to what he thought was best.

It was criminal activity on his part.

I think if you can't tell what's different with the Charter, then it's hard to accuse me of unlawfully altering it. :sleepy:

If you must know, I edited it for formatting, because whenever the topic was edited the formatting would be screwed up.

I also once edited an obvious typo in a bill that was at vote. You called me out on it. I dismissed your accusations of impropriety as overly legalistic. Fretting about typos is about the most boring thing anybody can do.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean don't fret. If you're gonna edit somethin', log it, and let it be known.

I'm not going to expect the Chair to log every minor formatting edit they make to the Charter. If you're not editing the language, I honestly don't care.

Do we seriously need to amend the Charter just to let the Chair edit typos, Belschaft? You are the one who is always talking about over-legislating things and turning into TNP. -_-

It's called compromise. Some people want to pass an amendment to edit minor issues. Others don't. A log is a reasonable compromise.

I agree that the Chair should be able to edit typos when it's obvious they are just that, and when it doesn't affect the meaning of the law. However, currently the Chair doesn't have that power, and yes, if the Chair wants that power then we do need to amend the Charter. Just because it's too uncomfortable to hold an entire vote, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Well, by similar logic, would it be legal for all amendments to be numbered one? Whether the answer is yes or no, it is implied that all amendments should be numbered sequentially, but, if they're not, I don't think we'd invalidate the law, just like I don't think we should have such rigidity that typos and formattin' can't be changed without an amendment or law bein' passed.

Well that's a problem guys. Our laws are excessively vague, to the point were it's not clear enough whether the Chair can or not fix typos. It's about time we stop pretending like common sense is the same as having actual laws, because some things are just not common sense and the point of laws is precisely to avoid these disagreements.