[blml] ...have we really come to this???

[Eric Landau]

On Jul 28, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:

> +=+ With respect to Eric's paragraph in which he wrote:
> <<
>>> "If the ACBL wanted L12C2, and the rest of the world wanted ACs  
>>> to have discretion to do equity, why not have TFLB say that ACs  
>>> have discretion to do equity subject to regulation by their ZO,  
>>> and let the ACBL pass its own equivalent to L12C2?"
> <<< I responded to Eric on this wise: <<
>>      " In the paragraph quoted here the reference to what the  
>> 'ACBL' wanted is dubious - we did not identify 'Kaplan' as 'the  
>> ACBL' and there was no evidence that he was proposing with an ACBL  
>> mandate. Nor, on the other hand, did the EBL constitute, or seek  
>> to speak for, the 'rest of the world' - even if one could possibly  
>> say it was the only part of the rest of the world sufficiently  
>> progressed at that time to stand up to Kaplan.
>>       We did have a vision of the individual as being imbued with  
>> his own sense of power and inclined to act as though the law was  
>> what Kaplan said it was (and if it wasn't it should be)."
> ============================================
>  I can add something to the above. First, there were ACBL  
> personalities who saw dangers in the kind of  'authoritarian'  
> approach adopted by Edgar. It was largely their initiative that
> led to the 'Stop' placed on creation of law by individuals post  
> Kaplan (WBFLC, item 4, 20th January 2000).   Second, I quote from a  
> letter I wrote with EBL LC backing on 28th July 1987, to Ed Theus  
> (Chairman WBFLC):
>   << I do ask that the Committee give attention to a point on which  
> I have corresponded with Edgar and where we do not share an  
> identical point of view. Put in the simplest terms I seek to  
> institute a footnote to Law 93B3, with an asterisk against 'all  
> powers', to say        "But may vary a score assigned under Law  
> 12C2 on
>          grounds of equity."
> It is becoming apparent to me that, even allowing whatever  
> deprivation the non-offending side may have suffered, a literal  
> application of the Law will still prove grossly inequitable at  
> times - there should be an escape clause for Appeals Committees  to  
> apply in such circumstances. I make these points:
>    1. It is not for our committee to seek to dictate the policy of  
> Organizations, as distinct from the framework of Laws within which  
> they operate.
>    2. Still less is it right for our committee to enter into the  
> field of value judgements which are, in essence, matters for Appeal  
> Committees. To have a law which, as here, dictates a value  
> judgement is autocratic and inappropriate.
>    3. I am convinced that some of the organizations will continue  
> to award what they consider to be equitable split results, not  
> conforming to the prescription in the laws, whilst the prestigious  
> W.B.F. Laws Committee sits like some latter-day Canute ordering the  
> flood to retreat. >>
> (At a meeting on 18th October 1987 the WBFLC added a footnote to  
> Law 12 (in reference to 'Director') saying "An Appeals Committee  
> may vary an assigned score in order to do equity.")   
> =============================================
> So it was.

I strongly suspect that there would be far less, if any, controversy  
over or objection to L12C3 today if it were used only as the above  
correspondence suggests it was intended to be: as an "escape clause"   
to be invoked when "a literal application of the Law [12C2] will...  
prove grossly inequitable", rather than, as seems to be the case, as  
ACs' "first tool out of the bag".

Perhaps there's an compromise solution that can be implemented as AC  
procedure:  Allow the use of L12C3 at committee discretion, but  
require a committee that chooses to apply it to state what their  
L12C2 ruling would have been and why they found it "grossly  
inequitable".


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net