Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SPEBSQSA/BHS District voting - legislation or litigation?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Feeney
    Regarding the amendment, it was disposed of prior to the vote on the main proposition, but it failed, as did the principal motion. As always, we tried to
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1 5:53 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Regarding the amendment, it was disposed of prior to the vote on the
      main proposition, but it failed, as did the principal motion. As
      always, we tried to follow parlimentary procedure correctly. It was
      a pretty close vote and could easily go the other way if submitted
      for a vote again.

      Peter Feeney
      President
      Far Western District



      >The Board
      >voted unanimously (9-0) against the measure with the President
      abstaining.
      >I realize it is conventional parliamentary procedure for him to
      abstain
      >unless it's a tie, but I don't find that provision in the SOP or
      >any other Society reg.
      >
      If the body has adopted Robert's Rules, usually done by reference in
      its
      bylaws, then that is the procedure, excepting any adopted Standing
      Rules
      which modify particular procedures.

      >After some discussion the chair (if I remember correctly)
      >ruled that it's appropriate to vote first on the measure and then
      on the
      >amendment, because if the measure was defeated there was nothing to
      amend.
      >
      >
      >
      That would be very bad parliamentary procedure. Proposed amendments
      to a
      Main Motion must be disposed of first.

      Michael Eastman
      Oregon Mid-Coast
    • Michael Eastman
      Just as I suspected, you seem to have done everything properly. I would have been truly surprised if it had been otherwise. Michael Eastman Oregon Mid-Coast
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 1 9:35 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Just as I suspected, you seem to have done everything properly. I would
        have been truly surprised if it had been otherwise.

        Michael Eastman
        Oregon Mid-Coast

        Peter Feeney wrote:

        >Regarding the amendment, it was disposed of prior to the vote on the
        >main proposition, but it failed, as did the principal motion. As
        >always, we tried to follow parlimentary procedure correctly. It was
        >a pretty close vote and could easily go the other way if submitted
        >for a vote again.
        >
        >Peter Feeney
        >President
        >Far Western District
        >
        >
        >>After some discussion the chair (if I remember correctly)
        >>ruled that it's appropriate to vote first on the measure and then
        >>
        >>
        >on the
        >
        >
        >>amendment, because if the measure was defeated there was nothing to
        >>
        >>
        >amend.
        >
        >
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >That would be very bad parliamentary procedure. Proposed amendments
        >to a
        >Main Motion must be disposed of first.
        >
        >Michael Eastman
        >Oregon Mid-Coast
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.