USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2005-10 > 1130016262


From: Don Tharp <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Give the people what they want
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:24:22 -0500
References: <435A2AC3.3060501@radix.net><00ef01c5d6a9$df1c2d30$6aa78ed1@betty553df88d1><00ef01c5d6a9$df1c2d30$6aa78ed1@betty553df88d1>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20051022100602.018af480@skpub.com>


At 10:06 AM 10/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> I do not believe the AB should put parliamentary procedure on a pedestal
> higher than the welfare of the Project, and Alice Sturgis seems to agree
> with me:  "The purpose of parliamentary procedure is to facilitate the
> transaction of business and to promote cooperation and harmony." (Sturgis,
> page 7).
>
> Wouldn't it promote cooperation and harmony just to give Jeff some time (24
> hours, perhaps) to change his mind, and then simply accept his resignation
> or non-resignation, whichever he might decide on?
>
> My opinion (just in case anyone wants it <G>),
>
> John Schunk


John, there by laws and PP should be placed on the highest pedestal. The
welfare of the organization depends on our elected representatives following
both our bylaws and our PP authority.

Another quote from Sturgis:

Sturgis, in speaking of the need to follow PP as emphasized by William O.
Douglas and Felix Frankfurter..."Thus two justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States voice the vital fact -- both our freedom and our rights can
exist
only if they are safeguarded by sound procedures, _rigidly enforced_."  _my
emphasis_

Too often in the past the AB has made mistakes by disregarded either our
bylaws, PP, or both, perhaps for their own ends or perhaps for expediency. We
are still endeavoring to repair those mistakes. Why compound them by once
again
avoiding what is omitted in our bylaws but sufficiently explained in our PP?

Jeff, made a mistake, he was evidently devastated by what he considered a
serious mistake. He resigned. Move on, Jeff has resigned, the position is
open.
The vacancy need to be filled.

Sturgis also says that an officer that has resigned cannot simply be restored
to office because they change their mind. An officer that has resigned can
only
be restored to that office by reelection. That is, if it was an elected
position, as it was in this case.

We should move on, call a special election for the vacancy that exists.
Hopefully Jeff will run and gain reelection. That is if he so chooses.

Time consuming, yes, but it is the way it should be done if we are to be an
organization governed by bylaws and PP. To do otherwise is to be governed by
the biases and prejudices of perhaps as few as 10 members of this
organization.

This is the second resignation in the last few month that has caused concerns
within the organization. I would hope the AB would place on their agenda a
procedure concerning resignation by officers, officer elect and other
members,
to avoid future occurrences of similar problems.

DonT





This thread: