law and philosophy

[cellio]

I sit on a board of trustees and was recently added to the bylaws committee. (Finally somebody listened to me when I said "I write precise technical specifications for a living and I'd like to help".) There are some changes we need to make this year, so the committee was charged with looking at everything. As long as we have to call a membership vote on bylaws changes anyway, the theory goes, we may as well try to address anything else that's posing problems.

I am in my element. :-) But it turns out that there are some "me against everybody else" differences in philosophy, so it's been educational all around. For example:

Me: This "examples" passage is just advice, not law. It doesn't belong.
Them: It's good advice.
Me: There should be no unnecessary words in law. This half-page doesn't accomplish anything.
Them: It's not like the difference between 15 pages and 14 is really going to matter.
Me: !!!

They explained that the intent of the actual law might not be clear; I said if not then we needed to clarify the law. They said people might still need examples; I said we were free to provide supplementary documents if anybody thought it was necessary. (Federalist papers, anybody?) Fundamentally, I believe that law should contain only what is truly necessary, with the result that it is short enough that we can expect stake-holders to read, comprehend, and remember it, and so that we leave to policy what should be covered by policy.

In the end they conceded the specific point of discussion, but I don't think we have achieved understanding. My point wasn't just to win this particular argument but to bring them around to a different way of thinking. So there is more work to be done here.

Some may remember that back when the principality of AEthelmearc was forming, I was one of the ones on the law committee arguing that our laws ought to fit on on 8.5 x 11" piece of paper in a reasonable font size, too. (For the kingdom I was willing to grant a second sheet of paper.) We lost that one, alas.

Comments

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

Laws which are short do not say things which are specific enough to be enforced usually. Synagogue by-laws usually have a lot more: this is how things shall be done the kinds of laws than the ennumeration of punishments baron_steffan is talking about.

I've heard many times the: 10 commandments/constitution are short compared to this year's federal budget which is long (and is law, though not in the sense I think you mean). To work well and be specific, many words are needed. If there are too few words, too much is left up to interpretation, which varies.

[cellio]

Sometimes you don't need to get specific in law. Our bylaws currently say that the board meets on the fourth Thursday of every month. This has actually never been the case during my time in this congregation -- we usually, but not exclusively, meet on third Thursdays. But instead of changing it to third Thursdays, we changed it to "monthly" and empowered the president to set the schedule. (A meeting can also be cancelled if there is an insufficient agenda.)

Another case: any situation that has to be approved by the board anyway can be left vague. The bylaws don't need to spell out the rules for how sisterhood and brotherhood will elect their chairs given that the choice has to be approved, for instance. On the other hand, the rules for how to amend the bylaws must be specific and unambiguous, because there is no "higher authority" (so to speak).

So I guess what I'm saying is: sometimes leaving things up to interpretation is a good thing IMO. It allows you to react to situations instead of waiting for the next annual meeting to change the bylaws to allow whatever it was you really needed to do six months ago.