.png)
By the virtue of the students
being our publishers, have we
informed them of our intention to
revise the charter the first chance
we had? Was the studentry even
aware that we have already started
drafting a charter?
Did we, as the Higher Editorial
Board, consult the staff (at
least) regarding the process we shall
be adopting in revising the charter?
Did we even give them a chance
to be a part of the Charter
Commission? Have we been
entirely transparent on our deliberations?
(As far as the 1st
and 2nd drafts are concerned)
With respect to the experiences
and efforts exerted
by the alumni for the publication,
have we formally sought
their advice regarding the
whole process of charter revision?
(At least Immediate Past
EIC Jecel Censoro)
Given that we have
opened the charter consultations
and making the 3rd charter
draft publicly available last 25th of
February 2010, and deliberated on
the 4th of March 2010, can we say
that the time (which was 4 working
days) we made available for the
public to react to our charter draft
is enough? Is one cycle of consultation
and drafting enough to ensure
that we have more or less considered
the interests of the studentry in our
charter revision process?
Do we have
enough justifiable
reasons on why
we should have the
new charter effective
as soon as possible?
What are the
risks of having the
old charter still in effect? Do these
reasons counterbalance the risk we
will have to take for pushing for
a contested charter? Are there no
other measures we can take to mitigate
the damage that will be caused
by the old charter instead of pushing
for the referendum of the charter in
question?
Given the questions stated
above, can we confidently say that
we have exhausted every effort in
ensuring that our shareholders have
the proper knowledge with regard to
the entire
charter
revision
process,
as well as
their resulting
arguments,
to make an informed decision in the
referendum?
Will our actions be completely
free from any taint of doubt? Will
these actions not severely compromise
the integrity of the publication
that under immediate past EIC Censoro
we had worked hard to build, as
well as our efforts to continue this
legacy? Ultimately, can we say that
only the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth prevailed in
the course of our actions, such that
Omnia Vincit Veritas will still hold
true at the end of the day?
Before we criticize the methods of
the opposition, we must put our methods
into scrutiny as well.
Choosing between what is right
and what is easy is always difficult; but we
must always choose what is right over what
is easy.
Manere si justus, corrigere si pravus.
