Another email blast came out today that explained why the author voted against the entire referendum. It includes one point that I keep seeing that is puzzling (it would be amusing, but this is a serious discussion and I hope that the point is not raised facetiously).
Here it is: Rule 1.07 is objectionable because it expressly requires compliance with Rule 1.06, and vice versa. And an express reference from each to the other somehow is a problem.
That's the gist of it. Rule 1.07 has been spun out of our present Rule 1.06 to make 1.06 less confusing, and the opponents don't like that.
It's as if this is a unique situation and each rule is supposed to stand all alone, out of context of the others.
A reference like that is intended to help: it reminds the lawyer who may not be familiar with the area that there are other important provisions to keep in mind. Besides, unless a rule expressly exempts compliance with one or more other rules, they all impliedly cross-reference each other.
If the opponents of the changes to Rules 1.06 and 1.07 were specifically unhappy with any particular provision, or preferred different language, they should have raised such a substantive complaint during the comment period or thereafter prior to finalization of the referendum documents. But there is no "replacement" on their agenda: they appear to only want to block change.
Here are the prior posts in this series:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Post-script
0 comments:
Post a Comment