BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-02 > 1012878152


From: "Kathy Heidel" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion: Resubmission of Standing Rule
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:02:32 -0600


Jana and Fellow Board Members,
You are forgetting "Precedence". We have Bylaws, Precedence, and Sturgis.
Now to back this up refer to page 238 in Sturgis.
When an organization's bylaws disagree with its parliamentary authority,
which should it follow?
Its bylaws. A parliamentary authority, such as this book, is intended as
a backup, to apply in situations not covered by bylaws or standing rules.

If an organization has followed certain practices for a long time, are these
practices considered rules of the organization?
Yes, custom and tradition can establish unwritten rules which are valid,
provided that they do not conflict with bylaws, To avoid misunderstanding,
however, it is advisable to put them in writing as standing rules.
So according to Sturgis, Holly can bring more than one motion to the
floor and it won't take another motion to allow this, as this is the way the
AB operated prior to adopting Sturgis and was an accepted practice.
Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Black" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Motion: Resubmission of Standing Rule


> Holly,
>
> Page 21, "Order of Precedence":
>
> "Precedence means the priority or order in which motions must be proposed,
> considered and disposed of. The purpose of assigning a rank or order to
each
> commonly used motion is to enable an assembly to propose, consider, and
> decide each motion without confusion."
>
> Seems to me precedence IS specifically "a measure of relative importance
or
> priority."
>
> I see the portion regarding ranking however, please offer your
> interpretation of p. 24, "What is the precedence of the Motion?"
>
> "To avoid confusion, each motion is assigned a *definite rank.* This rank
is
> based upon the urgency of the motion."
>
> Then see page 19 and the section regarding "Changes in classification of
> Motions" - seems to me that it is indeed your job to shift and move the
> order and priority of the business on our table as circumstances warrant.
>
> Now, I will say I have not gone back to look, however, if we were in the
> midst of discussion regarding the BFC Report when Nate resigned, would his
> resignation itself not create a situation that potentially changed the
> classification/priority of AB business?
>
> Perhaps adding a ranking number to our motion numbering convention would
> help sort it out??? I think there is a way for us to address more than one
> item of business at a time by perhaps designating the differences between
> categories of AB business (for example, differentiate between discussion
and
> action items...).
>
> Jana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Timm [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Motion: Resubmission of Standing Rule
>
>
> At 04:11 PM 2/3/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote:
> >Tina,
> >
> >Why is this necessary? Referring to page 22 of Sturgis, "Examples of
> >Precedence" it seems to me that the NC already has the authority to move
> >motions around according to priority. I am not convinced our problem is
the
> >number of motions on the floor, but rather that precedence is not be
> >applied.
>
> Precedence as used in Sturgis is not a measure of relative importance or
> priority. As long as one main motion (numbered 10 in the precedence list)
> is on the floor, no other motion of the same level of precedence (main
> motion) may be on the floor, only those with lower numbers in the Sturgis
> precedence list on page 22. If a motion to amend (9) is made, no other
> amendment motions may be made until that one is resolved. If a motion to
> refer to committee (8) is made, no amendment motions (9) may be made.
> Please read and re-read the relevant Chapter 5 Precedence of Motions
(pages
> 21-23) in particular the examples. Prior to the adoption of Sturgis we did
> have multiple motions and not only do I not have anything against doing
so,
> I favor it.
>
>
>
>
> >Jana
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [mailto:]
> >Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:01 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion: Resubmission of Standing Rule
> >
> >
> >I move to suspend the rules and adopt the following resolution:
> >
> >I move that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule
> >to present, discuss and vote on more than one motion at a time. This
> >motion is intended to multitask the day to day business of the board.
> >It is also intended to grant to the National Coordinator the role of
> >exercising judgment as to the magnitude of the motions presented, and
> >be given final judgment, as to whether motions presented can indeed be
> >considered together with others and still be afforded full
> >consideration to detail that the work of the USGenWeb Project
> >requires.
> >
> >Tina Vickery
> >
> >
> >page 209-210. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. 4th
> >edition. Alice Sturgis.
> >
> >"Organizations sometimes adopt rules of procedure that add to or vary
> >from the rules of parliamentary law as stated in their parliamentary
> >authority. The rules that are temporary and intended to meet a
> >current or special situation are called special rules. The rules that
> >are intended to stand until revoked are termed standing rules.
> >Organizations have the right to adopt special or standing rules by
> >majority vote without notice and to abolish or amend them in the same
> >manner."
>
>
>
>

This thread: