Re: [ga] Point of Order

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 08:08 AM 09/05/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> From an upper case perspective, quite likely.

The email subject line *is* in upper case, hence my
confusion.

>The fact is thought that William has raised a substantive
>point about the validity of the motion from a bylaws perspective.

I agree. And thank you for your pointers to the
relevant sections.

>The options at this point, as far as I can see them,
>is that Thomas can rule on William's "observation"

I think one is bending the rules of order (semi-existent
at that) too far to ask for a ruling on an 'observation'.

>(which would then require Jamie, or another supporter
>of the motion to rephrase the proposal ), or, William's
>point can be taken at face value and worked into the motion.
>The third option is that the proposal can continue towards
>a vote in the face of what are likely reasonable
>"constitutional" obstacles and lose all hope of
>carrying any weight or credibility.

A fourth option is that the Chair rules on the Point of
Order, or point of order, or observation, and two members
who disagree with that ruling (regardless of what it is)
move and second an appeal of the Chair's ruling. It then
goes to a vote of the assembly. There are very good reasons
for this rule being included in, for example, Robert's Rules
of Order. The alternative is that a Chair could frustrate
the will of the majority, even a majority of all members
but two (the bringer of the Point of Order and the Chair).

It seems to me that this is a dangerous road to go down,
but we have already taken that fork in the road when the
Chair (whose actions to date have been above reproach IMHO)
is arguing for, or against, the main motion, rather than
dealing with a point of order which normally takes precedence.
There is logic in this rule as well, as why continue with a
debate that may eventually be ruled out of order, particularily
when the Chair is not showing impartiality to the main motion?

I fail to see how this point of order (or whatever it is)
can have its apparently desired effect of not allowing for
a vote on the main motion. Assuming a majority wish a vote
(regardless of how or whether they will vote individually
on the main motion) they can over-rule the chair. If the
Chair cannot be over-ruled by the majority then I would
again ask where such a rule is written down.

>Which, also speaking from an upper case perspective,
>is why (at least to my understanding) the GA has never
>adopted the rules of order - they are really tough to
>make work via email.

Agreed. A Point of Order is a good example of this, it
is unlikely everyone will cease posting until such time
as the Chair rules on that point. That is an argument
against using Points of Order via email, not against using
*any* rules of order. As I said, reverse engineering the
rules of order rarely works well. If we're going to have
selective rules of disorder instead, perhaps someone would
be so kind as to post them, or are they open source and we
can all have a go? -g

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html