Talk:Constitution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Swebster No edit summary |
imported>Champagne |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Now that this page is protected, and can't even be edited by a member of the executive, it would be good if someone checked to make sure it is accurate. [[User:Swebster|Scott Webster]] 00:19, 24 November 2006 (MST) | :Now that this page is protected, and can't even be edited by a member of the executive, it would be good if someone checked to make sure it is accurate. [[User:Swebster|Scott Webster]] 00:19, 24 November 2006 (MST) | ||
:: Dan E. told me that it's exact, aka. copied from the website... [[User:Champagne|Champagne]] 00:25, 24 November 2006 (MST) | |||
Revision as of 07:25, 24 November 2006
Errors and Omissions in the Constitutions
There are some obvious errors and omissions in the constitution. For example, there is no "obligations" section for associate members.
- Should we make a revised version with these errors fixed. That way, if the exec ever wants to ammend the constitution with some other changes, they can include these "fixes" as well?
- Should we verify that the constitution we have in .DOC and wiki format actually matches the one the AMS has on file? The .DOC file was the proposed constitution presented at the AGM before filing. It's possible that some minor fixes were incorporated before filing.
--Chris Michalak 10:34, 16 Sep 2006 (MST)
- Now that this page is protected, and can't even be edited by a member of the executive, it would be good if someone checked to make sure it is accurate. Scott Webster 00:19, 24 November 2006 (MST)
- Dan E. told me that it's exact, aka. copied from the website... Champagne 00:25, 24 November 2006 (MST)