Linda's points are well taken.
I am in complete agreement with Dale's wish to move quickly, but we should
not violate previous agreements. It was somewhat disturbing when Dale
arbitrarily set a 10 day period. It would have been more comfortable had he
said something like, 'if there are no objections, I will allow a 10 day
period.'
We seem to be setting a dangerous precedent, and I therefore must vote No.
Don Kear
CC Carroll County
CC Putnam County
CC Van Wert County
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Boorom" <lboorom(a)fuse.net>
To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] By-Laws Comments
Following the numbering in your message:
1. We're following Sturgis because we voted in 2005 to follow Sturgis.
That can only be changed by a
'vote".
2. Much of the verbiage between Scott & Dale comes from Sturgis or
personal interpretations of
Sturgis.
3. There were still comments being made to the list Thanksgiving, 11/27.
There were some questions
asked during the discussion period & those questions discussed, but the
motion wasn't changed
because of the discussion. Agreed, asking questions isn't necessarily
objecting the
motion............... Never the less, discussion had not ended.
On 11/28 Scott presented a "Point of order" as proper procedures hadn't
been followed to end
discussion & bring the motion to a vote. At the same time he presented a
motion to "end discussion"
which was seconded by Bill Oliver.
The purpose of a "Point of Order" is "To call the attention of the
assembly and of the presiding
officer to a violation of the rules, an omission, a mistake, or an error
in procedure, and to secure
a ruling from the presiding officer on the question raised".
Dale had a choice then to decide if the Point of Order was "Well Taken"
and let Scott's motion to
end discussion either be voted on or passed by general consent if no
objections & then lead to a
vote or passed by general consent. Or, as happened, Dale indicated that
he didn't agree with Scott
& his Point of Order "was not well taken".
Scott had 2 choices, forget this ever happened even though at some point
in the future it could come
back to haunt us as a precedent, or to "Appeal the decision of the chair".
Again, the decision of
the chair was simply that Scott's Point of Order was "not well taken"
indicating that he felt that
there was no "violation of the rules, an omission, a mistake, or an error
in procedure".
Next step should be a vote on Dale's decision. If one agrees with Dale
that there was no "violation
of the rules, an omission, a mistake, or an error in procedure", or they
may disagree which means to
agree that there was a violation.
The only way to avoid this vote (per my limited understanding of Sturgis)
is for Dale to change his
ruling to "Well Taken" and then allow Scott's motion to end discussion.,
or for Scott to drop his
Appeal to Dale's decision on his Point of Order.
4. I'd like to see the committee formed as well, and then they can address
the issues of procedure
regarding motions, discussing motions & voting on motions as hopefully a
top priority and one of the
first issues to address.
5. Again, to summarize what has happened, Scott is not appealing the
motion to form a committee, he
is appealing the ruling by Dale regarding to Scott's "point of order" and
motion to end discussion.
6. Agreed, the holidays are a hard time to stay tuned to the mail lists
when we're busy with
families & other more important agenda's. Probably a big reason that
discussion "may" have slowed
down this week, never the less, it was still being discussed.
Overall, I don't think our members object to a committee being formed & I
really think we need one,
but there were some legitimate questions raised as to how it would be
formed, where discussion would
take place, who could be involved in discussion etc. The motion itself
hasn't changed from the
original motion so thus does not answer these questions. I imagine that
will be amended or added
later? BUT, that is not the issue at the moment!!!!
Linda Boorom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Gies" <ktqlts2008(a)gmail.com>
To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Subject: [OHGENWEB] By-Laws Comments
>I have been observing and reading all the mail about establishing
> By-Laws for OHGenWeb and yes I have comments like it or not.
>
> 1. I'm confused as to why we are trying to follow Sturgis if we are not
> meeting physically. Why not follow Roberts Rules....simple and
> direct....no nitty-gritty stuff from a big book.
>
> 2. The verbage that has been transpiring between Dale and Scott, I find
> unacceptable, nasty and unprofessional. The two of you men sound like
> you're fighting for supremacy.
> Stop all this petty bickering. It's getting old.
>
> 3. Dale did not end the discussion Scott as you may think. It ended on
> it's own due to lack of objection and further discussion.
>
> 4. I think the volunteers who wish to participate on the committee
> should come forth and get things rolling.
>
> 5. If we need a vote to pass the latest motions let's get going and ask
> for a vote. Isn't it a bit late for appeal?
>
> 6. This is Thanksgiving we were celebrating over the current weekend or
> did we forget?. Can't we be thankful we have volunteers like Dale and
> all the CCs?
>
>
> Kathy
> Lorain CC
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1822 - Release Date: 12/1/2008
8:23 AM