BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2001-05 > 0988722259


From: "RootsLady" <>
Subject: [BOARD-L] Conflicting parts within one motion.
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 08:04:19 -0500


I'd like to point the problem with the wording of Joe's original motion and
perhaps that is where the biggest issue lies, at least in my mind.

(part 1) Joe Zsedeny wrote:
In compliance with Article XIII, Section I, I move that the Board
establish a census project (CP) to be known as the Official USGenWeb
Census Project. This new CP will elect a Advisory Board representative
during the next scheduled annual election under the guidance of the
USGenWeb Election Committee. The AB representative will be elected from
nominees submitted by both of the present census projects.

The elected AB representative will act as the coordinator between the two
census projects, if they choose to participate, as well as others who may
choose to join the project.
**********

(I don't see anything wrong with the above. The removing of the Census
Project links left the project with NO official Census Project and no other
project has been named as official. To conform to the bylaws, as they now
stand, we need an official census project and the above portion of Joe's
motion covers that as per the bylaws. The above doesn't make either of the
current Census Projects "the" official project but instead creates a "new"
project in which members of both current Census Projects are invited and
encouraged to participate and have representation within the guidelines of
the USGenWeb Project.)

(part 2) Joe Zsedeny wrote:

Motion #00-10 and Executive Order #2000-F-1 are declared null and void
in so far as they conflict with the intent, purpose and/or establishment
of the Official USGenWeb Census Project.
*******

(The above is where the problem arises. This complete motion contains
conflicting aspects.)

(1) If Motion #00-10 and Executive Order #2000-F-1 are both declared null
and void, by passage of this complete motion, we will once again have an
official Census Project. That official Census Project would be the
delinked project and therefore the need and purpose for (part 1) is "Null."

(2) Such conflicting aspects, within the same motion, "may" be grounds for
the motion being "Out of Order" and would probably be better handled with a
withdrawal of the motion and then making a new motion containing only Part 1
for the moment. Another means would be a "Division of the Question" motion.
But trying to amend the complete motion ( if it is stated by the chair and
opened for discussion) to correct the conflicts doesn't seem to me to be the
best, nor proper, way of handling it.

The "plain English" version of RROO by DeVries (pg 110) states:
"The motion must be stated by the presiding officer. Before the chair states
the motion, though, the person making it can modify or withdraw it. After
the chair states it, the person must get the consent of the assembly to
modify or withdraw it. When a person withdraws a motion, the member who
seconded it can also withdraw his or her second."

I see a few avenues open that might solve the above conflict and still
provide a means to accomplish the basic desired results I believe Joe was
attempting. I will try to get those stated in a later message.

Comments welcomed and appreciated,
RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore

This thread: