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