Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VRWC_minion
"...and the current staggering of terms shall continue..."

This is the phrase that will bite Ms. Berry in the butt... If her interpretation of the statute is accepted, the current staggering of the the terms will NOT continue. Every time a mid-term vacancy occurred, the staggering would change, until it would be possible for all commission members to be appointed in the same year... The only way for the current staggering of terms to continue is for the term to end as scheduled, regardless of who finishes the unexpired term.

And as you keep pointing out, "shall" means "must"...

53 posted on 12/11/2001 12:51:45 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: CA Conservative
You wrote:

"...and the current staggering of terms shall continue..."

This is the phrase that will bite Ms. Berry in the butt... If her interpretation of the statute is accepted, the current staggering of the the terms will NOT continue. Every time a mid-term vacancy occurred, the staggering would change, until it would be possible for all commission members to be appointed in the same year... The only way for the current staggering of terms to continue is for the term to end as scheduled, regardless of who finishes the unexpired term.

And as you keep pointing out, "shall" means "must"...

Go back and take it slower. This actually helps Berry's case. It means the omission of the words in the current legislation was deliberate.

What you are reading is a version of the House bill before it was passed in 1994 on 8/19/94. This staggered language was omitted later on 10/3/94.

55 posted on 12/11/2001 12:57:44 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson