Ed Murphy wrote: >The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies >on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of >the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be >affected by the first sentence):
I have interpreted these notes in the history as qualifying the table as well as the history. I would have previously objected to the table if those notes did not exist. I think, therefore, that the totals are still conditional on CFJ 1688 after the ratification. >I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which >Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do you think needs to be further clarified? -zefram
