Daily Press Article

[ODUAlum78]

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/fai...post?track=rss

I am really curious about the complications raised by the DP.

CAA Bylaws.

According to Article 4.06.E: (emphasis added)
“Upon notice of an institution’s intent to withdraw, the institution’s team become ineligible on a date determined by the remaining members to compete for Association team championships.”


Additionally we see:

Article 6.05: (emphasis added)
“A majority vote of the present, and voting, representatives shall be sufficient to pass a measure."

It seems to me that all of this "need to amend the bylaws" rhetoric is unfounded.
That is a smokescreen. There is no need to change any bylaws; which the prospect thereof probably scares the h*** out some of the presidents.
I am sure that any talk of a bylaw being amended causes some to worry about long term ramifications, and the bureaucratic sense in them wants an associated multi year feasibility study etc.

Clearly, a majority of the members at a given venue (those present) need to do no more than set a date after the 2013 CAAT. Or not; period.

Some of you legal guys show me what I am missing here.

[ODUAlum78]

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/fai...post?track=rss

I am really curious about the complications raised by the DP.

CAA Bylaws.

According to Article 4.06.E: (emphasis added)
“Upon notice of an institution’s intent to withdraw, the institution’s team become ineligible on a date determined by the remaining members to compete for Association team championships.”


Additionally we see:

Article 6.05: (emphasis added)
“A majority vote of the present, and voting, representatives shall be sufficient to pass a measure."

It seems to me that all of this "need to amend the bylaws" rhetoric is unfounded.
That is a smokescreen. There is no need to change any bylaws; which the prospect thereof probably scares the h*** out some of the presidents.
I am sure that any talk of a bylaw being amended causes some to worry about long term ramifications, and the bureaucratic sense in them wants an associated multi year feasibility study etc.

Clearly, a majority of the members at a given venue (those present) need to do no more than set a date after the 2013 CAAT. Or not; period.

Some of you legal guys show me what I am missing here.

"After thorough discussion, the presidents unanimously decided to set July 1, 2012 as the date at which both institutions would become ineligible"

Vindication.

That statement implies thet the procedure was to set a specific date, just as the bylaws (Article 4.06.E) demand.
So much for pundits and reporters trying sensationalize by playing lawyer.