On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3030
> ============================== CFJ 3030 ==============================
>
> When enacted, a proposal performs the changes stipulated in its
> text
>
> ========================================================================
Arguments:
Starting first with a technicality: "enacted" is not described for
proposals or decisions, only rule changes. I'll assume this means
"adopted". So, when a proposal is adopted:
(1) Can the changes specified in its text happen at all?
(2) If so, is it the proposal that performs them (as opposed to the
rule authorizing the proposal)?
(3) As the CFJ is written, does it always perform the changes in
its text?
On Question (1), Rule 106/31 states:
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its adoption index, and then it takes effect.
"Take Effect"
1. To become operative, as under law or regulation: The curfew takes
effect at midnight.
2. To produce the desired reaction.
Pretty straightforward. In terms of a document, without explicit
redefinition, it means the specified effects (changes) happen. A
perusal of past rulesets shows that various documents (orders, motions,
proposals, decisions, applications) have "taken effect" over the years
all with the same basic definition - the actions specified are applied/
occur. Sometimes this was stated explicitly and sometimes it was
implicit, but no contradictions of the common definition were found.
So as written, "takes effect" means "these things happen".
In terms of question (2), it is reasonably clear from the above
quote in R106 (the powering of the proposal into an Instrument) that
it is the Proposal Instrument making the changes as permitted by R106,
and not R106 itself making the changes (which would mean all changes
happened at power 3). It's the Proposal that has an effect, not the
empowering Rule.
This means the CAN in the first paragraph of R106 is unnecessary or
duplicative as an enabler, but rather functions wholly as a limiter,
as the "as probibited by other rules" clause ensures that the R106
"taking effect" defers to R2140, limiting the effects to those within
the Power of the Proposal. This limitation details an explicit
severability ("does not preclude"), which means that for Question (3)
the proposal can be adopted and "take effect" but not perform any
changes outside its power.
So to begin and end on a technicality, I have to say UNDETERMINED on
this case, as an adopted proposal wouldn't perform changes above its
power. In other words, everything works as we generally thought.
-G.
