USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2005-08 > 1123089062


From: David Morgan <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Motion in regard to SP seat
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:11:02 -1000
References: <000b01c597b0$ea812e60$0373a00c@wchs>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c597b0$ea812e60$0373a00c@wchs>


Phyllis, I was not trying to circumvent the rules. I was just trying
to bring some
fairness for a candidate that just won a 2-year term, and now will not even be
able to finish the term she is in.

Do you think it is fair to just throw someone out? I don't care which project
she represents, if I had known she would immediately be thrown out, I
would have voted against the amendment.

If it is wrong, and apparently everybody agrees, then it is wrong.

David

On 8/2/05, Phyllis Rippee <> wrote:
> Amendments go into effect immediately upon passage. Motions cannot be made
> when a session has not been called to order.
>
> However, let's look at the proposed motion: Both the Tombstone and Archives
> Reps. are to be allowed to finish out their terms....meaning that the
> current Archives Rep. will serve until Sept. 1, 2007?....because if
> something different is meant, then her term ends when the new AB is seated
> Sept. 1, 2005 but this is unclear and what is left is the current Tombstone
> Rep. who serves until Sept. 1, 2006....well, technically until midnight
> August 31.
>
> Meaning that although there is a bylaws amendment giving all special
> projects representation, all special projects will not have participated in
> selecting a representative...ergo, they have none for at least a whole
> 'nuther year.
>
> Now, if it means that the newly elected Archives Rep. is to complete the
> term for which she has been chosen....then, by the terms in the motion all
> the special projects will elect their representative in the election of
> 2006...to be seated Sept. 1, 2006...but there will also be an Archives rep.
> until August 31, 2007.
>
> Unless, of course, the Archives Rep. accepts a nomination to run for the ONE
> special project seat and wins....then the Archives seat is vacated and
> according to the motion will not be filled. However, if the Archives Rep.
> does not accept a nomination, or is simply not nominated, or is not
> elected...then she stays until August 31, 2007.
>
> All of this destroys the intent and specific wording of the newly passed
> amendment which is supposed to go into effect immediately....and appears to
> necessitate the calling of a special election to fill the ONE seat because
> the TWO seats have been eliminated.
>
> 'Tis indeed a strange maze to follow that immediately upon passage of a
> bylaws amendment an action would be taken to circumvent it.
>
> Phyllis
>
>
> ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
> USGenWeb Newsletters
> http://www.usgenweb.org/newsletter/index.shtml
>
>


--
David Morgan Honolulu, HI
*** SWSC CC Representative -- USGenWeb Project
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

This thread: