Ross,
 
> But the selection of the IC was already defined in policy, that was the
> method used, your redefinition was not needed nor is it enforceable..
 
The IC is 100% at liberty to interprete policy, you know the section where
it sits. No-where is it explained how he/she can do it or which portions
are excluded of it. It simply is an IC-prerogative.
 
The only person able to make interpretations is the IC. In the case of the
IC-(s)election he has executed that privilege and the result is that Janis'
motion was overruled by an about 90% majority.
 
Don't like it? Tough but that is how things work.
 
Take care,
 
 \%/{at}rd

--- DB 1.58/001877