|
Grex > Coop11 > #103: Motion to withdraw from ACLU lawsuit. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
rcurl
|
|
Motion to withdraw from ACLU lawsuit.
| 
Jun 8 14:56 UTC 1999 |
MOTION: Cyberspace Communications Inc shall withdraw from
participation in the ACLU lawsuit aimed at overturning Michigan
Public Act 33 of 1999.
|
| 40 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 40:
|
Jun 8 15:00 UTC 1999 |
The Grex board was forced to act to involve this organization in the
ACLU lawsuit because time did not allow a vote by the membership.
However it is desirable to ascertain whether the action has the support
of the membership. This motion is intended to obtain a clear expression
of that support or lack of support, and to implement withdrawal if
there is a majority lack of support.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 40:
|
Jun 8 15:00 UTC 1999 |
I am opposed to this motion and will vote NO.
|
dpc
|
|
response 3 of 40:
|
Jun 8 15:34 UTC 1999 |
I will also vote NO.
|
bruin
|
|
response 4 of 40:
|
Jun 8 17:06 UTC 1999 |
Does a "no" vote mean I support or oppose Grex's action regarding the ACLU
suit?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 5 of 40:
|
Jun 8 17:09 UTC 1999 |
Confusing isn't it?
|
dpc
|
|
response 6 of 40:
|
Jun 8 18:00 UTC 1999 |
A "no" vote will mean that you support Grex joining the suit.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 40:
|
Jun 8 18:27 UTC 1999 |
necurA NO vote means that you do not support the motion. You might not
support
the motion because you think Grex should stay part of the lawsuit, or
because you think the motion is unclear, ambiguous, or incomplete. I
have no idea why any particular person might vote NO and it does not
matter. Of course, anyone may (or may not), as they wish, discuss this
motion, and give their reasons for possibly voting in favor or opposition.
I wish to vote NO so that Grex participation in the lawsuit will not
be terminated. All we would know from a failure of this motion is that
a majority did not want to have Grex do what it says.
Re #6: Grex has already joined the suit, so this motion has nothing to
do with that.
Re #4: I would have no idea what *your* no vote might mean, except its
effect would be that, if a majority agree, the lawsuit will continue.
Re #5: not at all. Grex has joined the lawsuit. The only possible new
motions that mean anything are to modify or quit our participation.
|
jep
|
|
response 8 of 40:
|
Jun 8 19:05 UTC 1999 |
As probably the only vocal person who does not support Grex
participating in this lawsuit, I find Rane's motion acceptable. I will
vote "yes".
I find his reasons for phrasing it as he did to be amusing. I'll
probably refer back to it in future discussions about manipulating the
membership. Rane wants to minimize the chance that the Board action
will be overturned, because he supports the Board's action. He doesn't
want to take the chance that insufficient participation will result in a
lack of support. This of course means that the result will be a weaker
show of support for the Board action. Only people who are strongly
opposed, such as myself, will vote to take any action. (Those who vote
"no" are voting to do nothing; those who don't vote are *not* supporters
of this action, but count as if they are.)
Oh, well. It won't affect anything. I acknowledge that the Board
correctly represented the views of the membership by the action they
took last night. "Vote 'Yes' to say 'No'!" Even a
straightforward member motion to join the lawsuit would have passed, so
I'll limit my protests to smirking at this bit of manipulation. (Even a
successful vote with enough "Yes" votes to overturn the Board's decision
will come too late; the ACLU will have filed the lawsuit already by
then.)
|
janc
|
|
response 9 of 40:
|
Jun 8 19:32 UTC 1999 |
So do we run both motions past the membership? Unless either Rane or I
withdraw our versions, I think the bylaws say that both have to be voted on.
This strikes me as stupid.
|
jep
|
|
response 10 of 40:
|
Jun 8 19:51 UTC 1999 |
They have to be combined somehow. What if both pass, or both fail?
We'd have conflicting actions, with neither taking precedence over the
other. That wouldn't be good from any reasonable person's point of
view.
Could the vote program be made to use different choices? Example:
The Board of Directors has voted to have Grex join the ACLU lawsuit
against the State of Michigan regarding Law #1234. Would you like to
have Grex participate in this lawsuit, or withdraw from it?
PARTICIPATE
WITHDRAW
This would be less ambiguous than the motions either of you have
proposed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 40:
|
Jun 8 20:05 UTC 1999 |
First, we have to stare each other down, Jan. :)
The Grex bylaws, as I pointed out elsewhere, have no provisions for
binding referenda. Only motions.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 40:
|
Jun 8 20:08 UTC 1999 |
in the previous item containing the discussion of the original proposal, i
entered a suggested new version, worded as a referendum and including the
explicit interpretation of both yes and no votes.
i suggest that it best combines the original intent of the proposal with the
simplicity which avoids reworking the vote program.
check it out.
rane just slipped in. can not a referendum submitted as a motion be
functionally binding?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 40:
|
Jun 8 20:58 UTC 1999 |
No. Only motions are allowed, and they must be voted up or down (or
postponed).
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 40:
|
Jun 8 21:01 UTC 1999 |
The other way to do this would be to forget the bylaws and do this as an
unofficial vote. The board has already approved the suit. The board has
stated that they will vote to withdraw if the members vote it down. Thefore,
what the bylaws say about the membership really doesn't have to apply.
|
janc
|
|
response 15 of 40:
|
Jun 9 01:04 UTC 1999 |
What exactly is the point of all this?
What *everyone* wants to do is let the members have a chance to either
endorse or condemn this lawsuit.
Eric's wording makes it clear either way - either we continue or we
don't. That's exactly the thing we want to vote on here.
Rane claims that for some pettifogging reasons we can't do that. He
says a NO vote on my motion to continue would not strictly force Grex to
withdraw. He's wrong, because the board has already said that the would
not make such a narrow reading of such a result. In fact, if that
motion was voted down, and the Grex board refused to withdraw from the
suit, I'd expect the next motion to come up would be a recall vote for
the board. Nobody here wants a board that uses narrow technicalities to
avoid following the clear wishes of the membership.
So Rane offers this alternate wording, which is certainly clearer about
forcing us to withdraw if it passes (which nobody expects to happen).
But if we are to accept Rane reasoning about my original motion, then
the failure of this motion could not be construed as an indication of
member support FOR the lawsuit. The whole reason that I originally made
a motion was because I felt that this was a significant enough action
that we should be asking for the formal backing of the membership in
undertaking it. If we accept Rane's own reasoning, then Rane's own
motion is completely useless for that purpose. So either Rane is wrong
and his motion is purposeless, or Rane is right and both motions are
needed.
Or we go with Eric's motion. If you really hate calling it a
referendum, then we'll call it a motion. And if you don't think a
motion can be worded like that, then tough luck - we've never adopted
Robert's rules of order or any other book that says what a motion can
and can't say.
I'm annoyed at this whole discussion, which I regard as an utter waste
of human energy, on a point that is 100% moot. If Rane thinks
otherwise, I defy him to point out any plausible bad thing that could
have happened if we had stuck with the original motion. Our
organization has real decisions to make - spending large amounts of
energy in meta-debate about the forms and procedures is pointless, and
it is exactly the reason I'm glad we never adopted RRO or anything
similar. As far as I can see, the main effect using those rules would
be to make us spend more time in this kind of pointlessness and less
making actual decisions.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 40:
|
Jun 9 04:00 UTC 1999 |
Woo hoo! I agree with Jan. I understand that getting hung up on
semantics and parliamentary procedure is what you do, Rane, but I think
Jan has a good point that the purpose of his motion was to show support
for the Board's actions, and by your own rules, voting down your motion
won't do that.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 17 of 40:
|
Jun 9 10:22 UTC 1999 |
Rane, would you please withdraw your proposal? I understand your wanting to
stick with Roberts Rules for doing things, but it is causing a great deal of
discomfort and frustration at this point. I'd like to just vote on the first
motion. If there is an ambiguous result, then we can deal with it at that
time. Let's not create a crisis when none currently exists.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 40:
|
Jun 9 17:22 UTC 1999 |
I've entered in the other item discussing procedure on this a reversal of
my statement that a "referendum" is not permissible. As I say there, the
provision in the bylaws for members to initiate votes IS the referendum
power. However a motion offered under it cannot force a choice between
only a finite number of actions - the choice must be between taking some
action and deciding to forego taking that action. However the action has
already been taken by the board, so it cannot be foregone. It takes a
clear, direct, vote to accomplish that.
The board really cannot "say" in advance how they would "take" a failure
of a motion that is the same as they have already enacted. That is just
discussion, and in fact, attempting to influence the outcome of the vote.
Some are talking here about "pettifogging", creating a "crisis", "narrow
technicalities"...and even something along the line of "words mean what I
say they mean". I'm feeling somewhat dumped upon for offering a more
logical procedure. I don't think intimidation is a good approach to making
decisions. If Jan would withdraw his motion, we would find out whether the
membership does or not not want to stay in the lawsuit without having to
put an "interpretation" upon a NO vote.
The board has committed Grex to the lawsuit. The only possible subsequent
action is to modify or reverse that action, which my motion does. Jan says
of my motion "Rane offers this alternate wording, which is certainly
clearer about forcing us to withdraw if it passes", which is gracious of
him. That is why I offer it. What more is needed? The failure of my motion
means that the board action stands and Grex does not withdraw from the
lawsuit. It does not mean anything else. I like to keep things simple,
clear, specific and unambiguous.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 40:
|
Jun 9 18:08 UTC 1999 |
It really doesn't matter, as all of the motions that have been proposed
will result in the same choices. Either Grex will withdraw from the
lawsuit, or it will continue to participate.
|
janc
|
|
response 20 of 40:
|
Jun 9 18:56 UTC 1999 |
I've actually said I like Eric's wording. You can consider my original
motion withdrawn. I am now backing Eric's replacement, which I consider
the clearest and most understandable of all the ones proposed.
Either of those motions allow the members the opportunity to endorse the
board action of taking up this lawsuit. It was that endorsement that I
was seeking when I entered the original motion. Your motion, by your
own reasoning, would not be an endorsement of the lawsuit if it failed,
only a rejection of the option of withdrawing. If that fine distinction
means anything, then your motion is not the one I want. If that fine
distinction does not mean anything, then your motion is unnecessary.
Either way, I'm sticking with Eric's wording.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 40:
|
Jun 9 19:15 UTC 1999 |
Eric's wording is not a motion but an explanation for the consequences of
a motion (such as often used on ballots when the full motion is not
given). It is usually written by an election committee, who consider the
preferred "ballot wording" submitted by the contending factions. It,
however, is never what the voters vote upon. They vote upon a simple
motion to adopt a law without any interpretation of what yes and no mean.
|
dpc
|
|
response 22 of 40:
|
Jun 9 19:45 UTC 1999 |
I think all this energy could be better spent preparing the documentation
for the suit which the ACLU needs. The Board has spoken; I see no point
in having the membership reaffirm the Board's decision, and certainly
see no point in a reverse motion which just confuses everyone.
Both motions should be withdrawn. Life should go on. 8-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 40:
|
Jun 9 20:02 UTC 1999 |
I'm willing if Jan is willing.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 40:
|
Jun 9 20:02 UTC 1999 |
I agree with Dave. There is no chance the decision to enter the lawsuit
is going to be overturned. I am probably the only one who intends to
vote that way, and I have misgivings about voting against an action
taken by the Board.
I spoke up before the special Board meeting. I know at least some of
the Board members considered what I said then. And also considered
what others said. The Board made a decision, as it thought it had to
do, and that decision went against what I thought it should have done.
Everyone has been represented, and the Board did what the membership
wanted, and what it thought best. I'm satisfied with the process, if
not happy with the outcome. So is everyone else. (All of those who
have made or proposed user motions were supporters of the Board's
action, no other vocal user has agreed with me.) So a motion is not
necessary, and won't accomplish anything.
|