editoradmin
< The Rosewood Rambler, Number 2 | The Rosewood Rambler, Number 4 >
Open Letter to President Vrooman
“A Significant Year” by J. Ed Newman, in the December NA, quotes you: “I lost sleep for several nights before voting for Ralph’s appeal. I believe a publisher has the right to enter for someone he has published. I cannot rule otherwise….” If the quote is accurate, that is one of the things that bothered me and prompted “I Was at San Diego. Where Were You?”
An executive judge is supposed to interpret the constitution and decisions should be made accordingly, and not on his personal feeling. I can put myself in that position by assuming I am a judge and some member asks for a ruling that all members attending a convention be allowed to vote. I might believe with all my heart that all members should be allowed to vote. But my personal feeling does not matter. The constitution states that members must fulfill certain activity requirements to be eligible to vote. And it is my duty to rule on what the constitution says, not on how I feel it should be. If you believe that the constitution says a publisher may enter for someone he has published, then you were right to rule as you did. But the only reason you gave was your personal feeling which should not be a factor in your decision.
There is another quote, or rather a continuation of the same one: “Unfortunately it became a play of personality against personality. It is sad when a convention of social gatherers, not informed of what is happening, goes along with the eloquence of the debaters.” Perhaps he misunderstood you and misquoted you. I hope so. I find it difficult to believe that you, especially in your position as president, would make such a derogatory statement about the convention attendees. Those “social gatherers, not informed” are, after all, the same ones who elected you president.
That sentence in the constitution is ambiguous, and it leaves room for disagreement among informed intelligent people. Why not assume that those disagreeing with you are such people, rather than “social gatherers, not informed of what is happening.”?
Proposal: Postpone the ‘76 Centennial so we can continue to argue about the ‘72 laureate.
De-scenting Bill Boys’s Red Herring
by Jacob L. Warner
Bill Boys asks in Limculadle 8 about the mechanics of enforcing the laureate amendment.
The answer is simple: We trust that the entrants will obey the rules. It is unthinkable, surely, that anyone would cheat to gain a laureate for himself or another.
The “permission in writing” is to prevent misunderstanding between publisher and author. No one will ask to see the permission any more than one would question whether Bill Boys cut the block that won him the 1973 art laureate.
If the language of the proposed amendment is ambiguous, I call your attention to Art. XI, Sec. 2. Have your revision ready when convention time rolls around.
Who started all this, anyway?
Published and printed by Leah G. Warner.