BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-01 > 1010508569


From: "Tim Stowell" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 02-02 - EC Slate - VOTE
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:49:29 -0500 (EST)


> At 02:11 AM 1/8/02 -0500, Tim Stowell wrote:
>>At 08:06 PM 1/7/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Teresa Lindquist, seconded by Phyllis Rippee, has called the question
>> >on the following motion made by Tina Vickery and seconded by Jana
>> >Black. Please vote yes to approve the EC slate and no to disapprove
>> >it.
>>
>>Sorry but I think that some discussion is in order - I think it rather
>>odd that you would place a motion under discussion and less than 3
>>hours later - since apparently your post of this AM never made it to
>>the list - to go to voting on it without members having an opportunity
>>to discuss it.
>
> Re-read your Board mail Tim, 20 minutes afterwards when I saw the post
> hit the list, I realized what I had posted and corrected it to read
> voting on whether to vote or not.

It has nothing to do with reading my Board mail. It has everything to do
with asking a question about the motion - nothing more nothing less. There
was not sufficient time between the motion being announced and the call for
the vote to vote or vote.

> Jana, Richard and Vicki - you voted on the erroneous posting askingfor
> approval/disapporval. Please vote again on the corrected vote on the
> call. Tim, is it your intent to vote no on the call?

I doubt it matters, since we've gone from sluggishness to hell bent on
ramming through motions without a discussion period. We need some order
here and so far I've not seen any but rather confusion.

No.
- ----------------------------------------------------via webmail----
Tim Stowell

This thread: