Cheryl:

I don't want to totally dismiss your efforts but it is a bit quixotic
for you to prepare an "alternative" draft when you have not obtained any
noticeable support for your proposed modifications to the draft we have
already submitted on behalf of the constituency. You claim to have
support from other NCUC members, but none have spoken out on this list,
so that claim will be disputed. The constituency you claim to speak for
also _does not exist_ yet. 

Moving on to substantive issues the structure you have proposed is
excessively complicated, and would not be implementable as far as I can
tell. You create two entirely new structures (a constituencies' chairs
council and a membership committee) and give it all kinds of additional
work to do when we are already concerned about our ability to populate a
smaller number of structures. This is simply not feasible. And it is
unclear what these new structures accomplish, other than proliferating
procedures and creating a risk of paralysis among all the moving parts. 

So you will need to propose these as amendments to the real charter
submission to the board and you will need to demonstrate some support
for them within the constituency. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Preston
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Alternative Charter draft 2 - with footnotes
> 
> to note substantive changes from the NCUC Proposal.  I hope I flagged
all
> of the substantive content changes.  Please let me know if I missed
any.
> Other changes of formatting and editing are extensive and not marked.
If
> you have a question on a particular section, please let me know.
> 
> I look forward to some discussion on this Alternative Charter.
> 
> Cheryl B. Preston
> Edwin M. Thomas
> Professor of Law
> J. Reuben Clark Law School
> Brigham Young University
> 434 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 422-2312
> [log in to unmask]