Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: paulhume@lan2wan.com (Paul Hume) Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Re: organizations Date: 11 Nov 2002 07:04:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <0uF49QA1AGy9Iwg5@ty-gath.demon.co.uk> <+dIe0CAmpZy9Iwy5@ty-gath.demon.co.uk> <1Kf4UOAcGyy9Iwiu@ty-gath.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.107.93.163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1037027097 28850 127.0.0.1 (11 Nov 2002 15:04:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Nov 2002 15:04:57 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:324466 Ian - > >Consitutional changes are the most delicate. Same same as the national > >one, structurally. > > Hmm, I still think any organisation should have one definitive > Constitution, and either stick to it or alter it, rather than saying, > "Well, we sort of have a constitution, but it's not in use right now... Oh but it is. As a foundational document, it is always sitting there staring at us (g). I'll expand on this notion in a bit... > >There are the By-Laws, there are regulation docs governing the > >performance of local Bodies, available to any member for reading, > >there is a new guide for Minervals on their initiation, excerpting > >material from these docs and discussing their significance for the > >individual member. > > Sounds complex. Wouldn't it be better to whack it all into one doc, > call it something snappy like, oh I don't know, "The Constitution," and > publicise it? Putting it all into one document which is protected as a Consitution, no. New York State did that...there are regulations for managing specific tracts of forest and agricultural land in the state Consitution. So it required extreme legislative measures to modify those regulations - in essence, to address local zoning changes. So point one, no you don't put it all in one document and call it a Constitution (g). By-laws, which also require significant legislative action to change, though not as tough as a Constitution, define the fuundamental organizational principles of OTO, Inc. The other regulatory docs contain policy that can be changed by the management as needed, usually stuff adopted by majority vote of the governing Body (the Executive, the Supreme Grand Council, or the Electoral College). It is stuff that moves - for instance, requiring that every local Body in the US have a working email address. Not something you put in the Constitution. Even the By-Laws should only note that chartered Bodies have to provide contact addresses. It is down to the College in a given time and place (like early 21st century USA) to say "We need email for this." A decade ago it would have been unworkable. A decade from now it may be obsolete. > >I think a bigger problem, one we are grappling with, is that phrasing > >expectations of any kind was for so long regarded as untheleeeeeemic > >that sometimes people don't even feel they can say "You are expected > >not to puke on the floor, and to clean it up if you do." Fuck that > >noise (g). > > Agreed. > > So, given all that, "Why Can't We Just Put Aside All Our Differences And > Get Along? (TM)" Most of the different groups with OTO ancestry are invested in their own view of how to that job (I include the one I'm in (g)). And most of them have history - recent history with hefty scarring - with each other. My apologies for being pedantic about that. I know you know that better than I...sorry Ian, I wasn't around then, and if it happened again tomorrow it still wouldn't be in my purview. I just make life miserable for US Body Masters, and have no writ overseas. Paul