Thank you, Scott & Linda.
Sturgis was written for a physical assembly - where all members of the
organization are in the same room. Sturgis is not applicable to our form of
communication. We cannot conduct voice votes and we cannot respond
immediately. Our ability to communicate depends upon the speed of the
Rootsweb server and how often we check our e-mail.
The motion was to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb and to open
the list for CC input as to what goes into those bylaws. This was a
non-issue. It is not a controversial topic, but a procedural matter.
Were we all in the same room, I would have called for a motion from the
floor and a voice vote. But that was not possible. Weeks of waiting could
have been saved by not taking a vote on the motion.
If you look back through the list archives, you will find all discussion on
the motion were positive. Several posts urged forward movement as soon as
possible and several CC's had already offered input and made nominations or
volunteered.
Parliamentary procedure has two purposes. 1. to ensure order in a
proceeding and 2. to ensure that everyone who wishes to be heard can do so.
In this instance, everyone who wished to be heard was given ample
opportunity.
I made two decisions regarding this motion. 1. To allow 10 days for
discussion, after which time, if there were no objections, it would pass by
acclamation (I had used the wrong term - the proper term was "general
consent") and 2. To declare the motion passed by general consent. There
were no objections to my first decision. If a member of our group found 10
days insufficient time for discussion and objections, there should have been
an objection in that time. Both members objecting now made several posts
during the discussion time yet offered no objections.
Everyone in OHGenWeb has the right to express their opinion. But when the
discussion time has expired and you do not speak, even though you have had
ample opportunity, you cannot go back and say "Hey, wait a minute, I want to
change things." That leads to disorder. If someone were to want to
continue discussing a motion from six months ago, should I allow it?
My actions were correct according to Sturgis. From Page 241...
"General consent is a way of saving time by avoiding votes on routine or
noncontroversial matters. It can be used only when there is unanimous
agreement, and is sometimes referred to as "unanimous consent." When it is
used, the chair always must ask whether there is any objection; if there is,
a formal vote must be taken."
When I opened discussion, I stated that it would pass by general consent if
there were no objections within the time period allowed. There were no
objections to the motion and there were no objections to the time period
allowed. Discussion on the motion had died down. And it definitely was not
a controversial motion. I did not decide arbitrarily to end discussion. It
had ended by itself.
Continuing to page 242 of Sturgis...
"By using the phrase 'if there is no objection' - which has been referred to
as the 'magic phrase,' because it permits almost any action to be taken -
the chair is acknowledging the right of the assembly to make the decision.
If any member objects, general consent does not exist and it becomes
necessary to submit the question to the assembly for a vote."
My original message
(
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OHGEN/2008-11/1226932605)
made it clear that, barring objections, the motion I would pass the motion.
There were no objections. So, technically, I did not make the decision to
pass the motion. The membership did by not objecting.
I have followed established guidelines.
Scott, do you wish to state further reasons for objecting, or were they all
contained in your motion?
Dale
Internet Access is only $8.99 per month at
KBAnet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Linda Boorom
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:25 PM
To: Scott R. C. Anderson; ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair
I second Scott's motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair.
Strugis pg 84
Rules Governing the Motion to Appeal
1. Can interrupt a speaker because it must be proposed immediately.
2. Requires a Second
3. Is debatable
4. Cannot be amended
5. Requires a majority vote in the negative to overrule the presiding
officer's decision 6. Takes precedence as an incidental motion and must be
decided immediately 7. Applies to rulings and decisions of the presiding
officer 8. Can have applied to it the motions to close debate, to limit
debate, and to withdraw.
Linda Boorom
Hamilton Co.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R. C. Anderson" <srca(a)mindspring.com>
To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:04 PM
Subject: [OHGENWEB] Motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair
Unfortunately, Dale has overruled my point of order, rather than
acknowledging his error and
allowing us to proceed as normal. In this situation, parliamentary
procedure allows me to appeal
the decision of the Chair to the assembly. Quoting Sturgis (p. 82):
"Purpose: to enable a member
who believes that the presiding officer is mistaken or unfair in a
ruling
to have the assembly
decide by vote whether the presiding officer's decision should be
upheld
or overruled." and "Any
decision of the presiding officer involving judgment is subject to
appeal."
Dale made three errors when he restated the motion to form the committee
and tried
to enforce the
following procedure:
"If there are no objections within 10 days, the motion will pass by
acclamation."
1) Dale set an arbitrary deadline for ending the discussion. While this
may seem
reasonable, it is
*not* his decision to make, because "the presiding officer
should never
end discussion
arbitrarily. It should be ended only by the assembly." (Sturgis,
p. 128)
2) Dale skipped the vote about ending the discussion. There are three ways
for
discussion to end
on a debatable motion (Sturgis, p. 128):
(i) through the motion to Close Debate and Vote Immediately (Sturgis,
p. 65),
or
(ii) a motion to Limit Debate (Sturgis, p. 62), or
(iii) if the debate has waned, the presiding officer may also inquire
after
further discussion
(p. 127),
initiating a vote called "general consent", but Dale made no
such final request.
3) Dale also skipped the vote on the motion itself. This is a second,
separate vote
and must
always occur after the discussion has formally been completed.
Seeing no further discussion on this issue, I attempted to move the end of
discussion (#2), and
instead of allowing this to proceed (by far the simplest thing to do
in
this situation), Dale
ruled it was not necessary and that the motion had passed based on
his
self-defined procedure. He
refered to the Chair's right to choose general consent, but this
can only
occur *after* a vote is
initiated, and no proper initiation occurred.
This is very serious business, as we have a set of rules that are clearly
layed out
for us, and
Dale is attempting to change them on his own initiative. I know these
rules are complicated, but
they're even more complicated if they are arbitrarily changed
from motion
to motion.
More importantly, Dale is refusing to acknowledge his errors, which is a
really bad
way to begin
his tenure as presiding officer.
I therefore request that we set the procedure right and assert the
supremacy of our
assembly by
overruling the decision of the Chair. Please do not succumb to the
desire
for expediency, which we
all share, by allowing the Chair to do whatever he wants.
Thank you,
Scott
On Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 AM MT, Dale Grimm <dale(a)kbanet.com>
wrote:
>Scott,
>
>Then make your motion and let's get this moving.
>
>
>Dale
>
>
>
>Internet Access is only $8.99 per month at
KBAnet.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
>Behalf Of Scott R. C. Anderson
>Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:39 PM
>To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Motion to End Discussion and Vote on the Motion to
>Form a Committee to Draft Bylaws
>
>Hi, Dale,
>
>This section of Sturgis (p. 241) refers to any vote. And there are
*always*
>two votes on debatable motions, one on whether to end debate and
bring it
to
>a vote, and the other the vote on the motion itself. In
particular, "the
>presiding officer should never end discussion arbitrarily. It should be
>ended only by the assembly." (Sturgis, p. 128)
>
>So I'm afraid you are not allowed to set your own deadline. It's very
>clearly part of parliamentary procedure and you are setting a terrible,
>terrible precedent by overruling me, just ask your professional
>parliamentarian. If you do not withdraw, I will need to appeal the
decision
>of the chair, and we will be hung up that much longer. So
>please reconsider.
>
>Seeking general consent can be used on both of these votes, and I
encourage
>you to test for that whenever it seems possible. I've now
given you the
>opportunity to do so.
>
>Scott
>
>On Friday, November 28, 2008 5:02 PM MT, Dale Grimm <dale(a)kbanet.com>
wrote:
>>My apologies. The phrase I should have used is "general
consent".
>>
>>From Sturgis, p. 241
>>
>>"General consent is a way of saving time by avoiding votes on routine
>>or noncontroversial matters. It can be used only when there is
>>unanimous agreement, and is sometimes referred to as 'unanimous
>>consent.' When it is used, the chair must always ask whether there is
>>any objection; if there is, a formal vote must be taken."
>>
>>When the motion was made and seconded, I stated that the list was open
>>for discussion, and if there were no objections, it would pass. The
>>only discussion was positive and no one raised an objection. This does
>>not appear to be a controversial motion. To allow time for a vote
>>would require at least another week. The process of adopting bylaws
>>will take quite some time to complete, so time is of the essence.
>>
>>Sturgis was designed for physical meetings, and we have to make
>>adaptations to fit our form of communication. I have had a
>>professional parlimentarian tell me that we cannot use Sturgis for just
>>that reason. But the adaptations have worked well so far. This is
>>also something that we will have to include in our bylaws.
>>
>>Scott's point of order is not well taken. The motion passes by general
>>consent. We will now accept volunteers to form a committee to draft
>>bylaws for OHGenWeb and open the board for CC input on what should be
>>in those bylaws.
>>
>>Scott and Bill have already volunteered. Please do not nominate others.
>>This committee will require an investment of time and I don't want
>>anyone to feel pressured.
>>
>>
>>Dale
>>
>>
>>
>>Internet Access is only $8.99 per month at
KBAnet.com
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
>>Behalf Of Scott R. C. Anderson
>>Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:29 AM
>>To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
>>Subject: [OHGENWEB] Motion to End Discussion and Vote on the Motion to
>>Form a Committee to Draft Bylaws
>>
>>Point of order. In the past we have sort of kind of had discussion
>>periods of about seven days and end-of-discussion periods of about
>>three days, which adds up to ten days. But to follow parliamentary
>>procedure, there should be a motion and a second to end discussion and
>>bring this to a vote. Then it comes to time to say something like "if
>>there are no objections to ending discussion in two days, we will
>>vote". And only after that it becomes appropriate to say (if it seems
>>probable), "if there are no objections the motion will pass by
>acclamation".
>>
>>So I move to end discussion and bring this to a vote.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>On Monday, November 17, 2008 7:37 AM MT, Dale Grimm <dale(a)kbanet.com>
>wrote:
>>>It has been moved and seconded that we accept volunteers to form a
>>>committee to draft official bylaws for OHGenWeb and that the board be
>>>opened for discussion.
>>>
>>>If there are no objections within 10 days, the motion will pass by
>>>acclamation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dale
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Internet Access is only $8.99 per month at
KBAnet.com
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com]
>>>On Behalf Of Joan Asche
>>>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:24 AM
>>>To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
>>>Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Future of OHGenWeb
>>>
>>>I second that a committee be formed to develop the bylaws for OHGenWeb.
>>>
>>>Joan Asche
>>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Bill <wnoliver(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> 'siyo,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, your message didn't get to me before my last past, i.e.:
"We
>>>> vote on them - ..."
>>>>
>>>> I move that a committee be formed to develop bylaws for the OHGenWeb
>>>> Project; that the membership be asked for discussion and amendments;
>>>> and, that each section of the bylaws proposed be handled separately.
>>>>
>>>> Sgi,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> -=-
>>>>
>>>> Dale Grimm wrote:
>>>>> Sturgis states that proposed bylaws be put before the membership
>>>>> for discussion and amendments. Each section of the bylaws are
>>>>> handled separately. Amendments are voted upon first, then the
>>>>> section of the bylaws. Then you move on to the next section.
>Amendments & bylaw.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the procedure that I would recommend:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A motion is offered and seconded to accept volunteers (3-5
>>>>> members) to form a committee to develop bylaws and to open the list
>>>>> to
>>>members input.
>>>>> 2. The committee comes up with bylaws using members input and
>>>>> other
>>>states'
>>>>> bylaws as a guideline.
>>>>> 3. We vote on them - and this will take some time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of the
message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message