An important note from the CCRP Platform Chair
First off, it has been an honor to serve as CCRP Platform Chair. The volunteers on the committee were a delight to work with. My only regret was that we were limited on time.
In the debate on the floor regarding “shall” and “should” the body decided that we should use “shall” where it was intended to require some action. After the Convention, I was working with Ann Makar to implement those changes. I thought it would be good to look up the definitions for “shall”, “should”, and “must” to make sure I was using the most appropriate word for each situation. Much to my surprise, I discovered this:
“As it turns out, “shall” is not a word of obligation. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno that “shall” really means “may” – quite a surprise to attorneys who were taught in law school that “shall” means “must”. In fact, “must” is the only word that imposes a legal obligation that something is mandatory. Also, “must not” are the only words that say something is prohibited.”
Needless to say, that will explain the requisite changes in the Platform.
Thank you again for sticking in there on that long day and for the respectful, yet passionate debate and discussion. I believe we ended up with a solid Platform that will guide the CCRP for the next 4 years.