Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'wording vs intent'.
Found 1 result
To me, this seems obvious, but to others, it is not! When providing an interpretation of a Bylaw shouldn't the interpretation be rendered based upon actual wording and punctuation rather than the "so called intent" of a bylaw? It would seem that "intent" opens a can of worms leaving it in people's judgment of what they remember an intent should be or open to bias. The problem specifically is that someone has been removed from office because of a statement about required training states the specific training must be provided by the specific state we are operating within. That could not be argued against because it specifically stated the state in the bylaw. Then in another move to remove several people from office, there is a statement of qualification that does not have the state stated specifically only the type of training. The issue here is a ruling was made because of a specific word being present without any relief for an equivalent. Now the same individuals are trying to say another qualification without the state specifically being listed still applies because of the intent of the wording. To me, this is two faced and wrong. I have always interpreted a bylaw based upon the current wording, not the intention. This keeps all emotion out of the ruling. Is this a correct way to look at making an interpretation of a bylaw, by the actual wording that is, not by intent of the wording?