OK, here is where I reallly start to get confused with following Sturgis.
Does Scott need to make the motion to end discussion a second time, esp. since Bill 2nd
the motion
that motion made by Scott?
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Grimm" <dale(a)kbanet.com>
To: "'Scott R. C. Anderson'" <srca(a)mindspring.com>;
<ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Motion to End Discussion and Vote on the Motion toForm a Committee
to Draft
Bylaws
Scott,
Then make your motion and let's get this moving.
Dale
snip
>-----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
>