|
Grex > Coop11 > #103: Motion to withdraw from ACLU lawsuit. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 40 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 25 of 40:
| 
Jun 9 22:10 UTC 1999 |
this is ridiculous...the board are the elected representatives of the
membership, and had the right to involve grex in this lawsuit. no
member vote is necessary. The only reason a member vote would be
necessary, or proper, would have been if grex's participation put it
at serious financial risk, or was in conflict with the bylaws. As it is,
a member vote to endorse the board's action is unneccesary bureacracy.
In the case of rcurl's motion, it is not his place to make it. Logic
would dictate that any grex member who makes a motion should support that
motion. He does not support grex withdrawing. No motion should be
proposed, unless there is a member proposing it who supports it. It is
not enough to simply think there should be a vote, the member making the
proposal must present himself as the first supporter of that motion.
If that isnt spelled out in the bylaws, the bylaws should be amended to
state it. Otherwise you could have votes taking place where there is no
pre-existing demonstration of support.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 40:
|
Jun 9 22:49 UTC 1999 |
You are simply incorrect. Motions are ways of accomplishing objectives.
There is absolutely not the least reason that the person making a motion
has to be a supporter of it, in common sense or in RRoO. One common reason
for a motion is to put an issue on the floor for discussion as there is
no other way (in board procedures) to discuss a subject, except in
committee of the whole. A motion focuses debate. It does not matter if
a proponent or opponent moves it.
In this case, I would not have made my motion if another had not been made
that, in my opinion, made no sense, since the decision had been made. It
did not need a "cheering section". Therefore the only motion that, in my
opinion, made sense, was a substitute motion, worded in reverse. The crowd
here I supposed doesn't know about motion substitution, so I took the
simplest course, an alternative motion, since the Grex bylaws do not forbid
another motion to be made while one has the floor (as RRoO provides).
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 40:
|
Jun 10 03:16 UTC 1999 |
Is there a general feeling that no membership vote should be taken on this
subject? Are there people who feel strongly that there should be one? If
people feel it would be better to drop the vote, I'm OK with that.
|
aruba
|
|
response 28 of 40:
|
Jun 10 03:21 UTC 1999 |
I think we should continue with Jan's original motion, because I'd like to
be sure that the membership agrees with what the board has voted. I think
I understand Rane to say that only the success of a motion can mean anything.
Fine - then lets go with the motion that's most like ly to succeed. If it
doesn't, then we can try the other one.
|
scg
|
|
response 29 of 40:
|
Jun 10 03:39 UTC 1999 |
I'm comfortable either way. I don't think a membership vote has to be taken
to overturn the board action, since nobody seems to support overturning the
board's action anyway. The feeling of the board seemed to be that they wanted
a firm endorsement from the membership to continue the participation in this
suit (not just the lack of a no vote), so I certianly got the impression at
that point that some people felt Jan/Eric's motion was needed.
Personally, I'm comfortable electing a good board and assuming that they'll
do what's best for Grex, and listen if people scream out against their
actions. I'm also comfortable with the notion that anybody who really
strongly feels that the board made a serious mistake can start a referrendum
on the issue, but I don't think that's a mechanism that needs to be used
unless somebody thinks the board did something that should be overturned.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 40:
|
Jun 10 05:04 UTC 1999 |
Since I agree with that, I see no use for a motion that just repeats the
board action. Membership votes aren't just "cheering sections" (as I said
elsewhere). They are honest-to-goodness acts under Grex Articles and
bylaws, as sanctioned by state law, and take equal precedent with board
motions. If a member proposed a motion and the membership adopted it,
would we expect the board to adopt the same motion to show that they
support it too? They didn't, in all the membership votes I have ever
been a witness to.
|
mary
|
|
response 31 of 40:
|
Jun 10 11:02 UTC 1999 |
I have no problem whatsoever with membership votes being used
as "cheering sections". This is an important issue and our
participation is not risk-free. If the Board would like to
see a clear mandate from the membership then I'm real happy
to see this brought to a membership vote. Stating the
vote clearly, in the positive, to parallel the Board's
vote would be fine.
In general, I like it when membership votes are taken. I'd
like to see it happen more often, encouraging the membership
to be involved, and driving home the message of how every
member's opinion counts.
Asking for another vote, on the same issue, phrased in the
negative, before the wording on first vote was even finalized
was possibly well-meaning on your part, Rane, but not very
helpful. It looks a little like you're trying to bully
folks into doing it your way.
I'd like to see this go to a vote (phrased as clearly as
possible) to add the membership's backing to the
Board's actions. This issue is that important. I think
being able to say the membership voted to support this
would say a lot about Grex.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 40:
|
Jun 10 17:37 UTC 1999 |
On further reflection, I think I could have been more helpful by
suggesting that the support motion be phrased as a Resolution in
Support of the Board. Having it as a parallel motion creates two
legislative bodies moving the same matter, which is redundant. But
to accomplish what Mary favors, a support resolution would be fine.
This would have been of the form:
Moved: Whereas: ....etc....
Be it Therefore Resolved: That the action of the board to ....etc ... is
supported by a majority of Grex membership.
It is apparent that I give more weight to the legislative power, and
hence responsibility, of the Grex membership than do others. The
"cheering section" actions of even legislative bodies is done by Resolution,
not motions to take actions (other than to adopt the Resolution). In
fact, the Resolution format is more powerful as a "cheering section"
action, as the reasons for the action can be included (explanations should
not be included in ordinary motions).
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 40:
|
Jun 10 23:37 UTC 1999 |
In congress, you would never see a congressman introducing a bill that
he himself does not support. Even if rcurl has the right to introduce
this motion, its reasonable to not put it to a vote unless it is
shown there is some demonstration of support.
perhaps, no motion should be put up to a vote unless it is seconded by
three or more people who actually *support* it
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 40:
|
Jun 11 04:20 UTC 1999 |
There is no provision for that in the bylaws.
One never knows whether a "second" supports or does not support a motion.
It is, in fact, even more common than offering a motion one opposes to
second one, to ensure a minority gets a hearing. Fairness essentially
dictates this (though many majorities of all-but-one don't really care for
fairness).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 40:
|
Jun 11 21:10 UTC 1999 |
I withdraw this motion.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 36 of 40:
|
Jun 12 03:42 UTC 1999 |
Actually, I agree with rcurl's logic for this motion (now withdrawn, I note),
though it may have been a case of being "dead right". This whole thing came
about because the board took independent action before waiting for a member
vote, something it felt it had to do. To have a motion for support of the
board action was politic, but in absense of clear, unequivocal rules for what
things the board can do on its own and what things require a membership vote,
was "unnecessary". Lastly, I'd like to point out that it is totally
unnecessary for the board to vote on withdrawing from the suit if the
membership passes a vote stating that it should do so. The vote should be
binding on its face, and require no board "affirmation".
|
other
|
|
response 37 of 40:
|
Jun 12 05:22 UTC 1999 |
not to engage in necro-equo-flagellation, but rane, would you be so kind as
to explain to me how, in the context of our declination to adopt a formal set
of parliamentary procedures, the referendum i worded can be construed to mean
and accomplish anything other than what it is intended to?
the fact that it includes an explanation of the interpretation of member
votes upon it seems to clarify the intent, so why would you take issue with
it unless your obvious commitment to the value of formal procedures permits
no consideration of the potential value of informal ones?
|
drew
|
|
response 38 of 40:
|
Jun 12 23:19 UTC 1999 |
Re #33:
I once saw footage of Tip O'Niel ramming through a voice vote on a bill
that he had been opposed to, shocking the rest of the senate into a brief
period of silence. (He realized that his opposition was a lost cause.) I
wouldn't put it past someone to introduce something he doesn't support.
|
steve
|
|
response 39 of 40:
|
Jun 14 23:44 UTC 1999 |
Thank you for withdrawing this, Rane. I don't see the point in it.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 40 of 40:
|
Jun 29 00:12 UTC 1999 |
Perhaps Tip shocked the House, not the Senate? :-)
|