> I've tried to discern what that purpose is, and I can't find one
> compelling enough to support its continued existence. If someone is
> eligible (isn't under a disciplinary action disallowing them from
> holding an officer, for example) I can think of no good reason for an
> administrator to remove them. I would think it better to put just a
> bit of faith in the few democratic processes our club has.
I believe that the purpose of the veto power on applications is that the
presiding officer may have more information than the constituents. In
particular, the officers may know about disciplinary actions that the
general members do not. With the general policy of punishments being kept
quiet and without details to the general membership, it would be hard in
some cases for the members to make an informed democratic decision.
Perhaps this is another good argument for making disciplinary actions
public, but it nevertheless makes me consider that changing that one power
of officers, without changing other things about the way the club is run,
may not be as beneficial as it appears at first glance.
Just something to think about.
Charlie Collins
us2002023850