On Tuesday, December 9, 2008 7:53 PM MT, Dale Grimm <input(a)kbanet.com> wrote:
Once again, discussion time has ended. That means no more
discussing.
a) As noted in my message, Sturgis clearly gives me the right to make this correction to
your statement. It is a brief but accurate summary of my motion to appeal.
b) Sturgis does not preclude discussion while voting occurs. The previous SC has confirmed
this.
P.S. My message took almost a day to arrive on the list...
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Scott R. C. Anderson
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:58 PM
To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [OHGENWEB] Proper Statement of the Motion to Appeal
***************
A yes vote will sustain the State Coordinator's decision to end the
discussion of the previous motion on a date of his own choosing, skip the
vote on ending discussion, and skip the vote on the motion.
A no vote will overrule the State Coordinator's decision.
***************
This vote has nothing to do with the committee, which was never referenced
in my appeal except in a brief reference. So Dale's original description at
the very least is poorly stated and therefore confusing. It also leaves out
two of the three points I made. The above is a much more accurate way to
present my issue.
"It is the duty of the presiding officer to state every motion as correctly
and clearly as possible even though it may be necessary to change the
wording of the motion. The meaning of the motion, however, cannot be
changed, without the consent of the proposer. If the presiding officer makes
an error in stating a motion, or if there is a difference of opinion as to
the exact wording of the motion, the motion as stated by the member is the
legal motion." (Sturgis, p. 14).
Scott