Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association

[Rob Hall <rob@momentous.ca>]

At 04:12 PM 8/21/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>I was more proposing that a Robert's Rules construct be adopted where
>
>a) the original motion is properly carried or defeated
>b) amendments to the original motion are moved and then properly carried or
>defeated.

Actually, if memory serves, Roberts rules of order (no, not mine, but the 
official version!) is the reverse of this .... the amendments are voted on 
or accepted as friendly by the original motion maker prior to the vote on 
the entire motion being held ...

I believe that is how so many attachments are made to U.S. bills prior to 
their being passed.

But, I have that little burgundy book around here somewhere and I can dig 
it out ....


I would like to make a comment on the whole though,

It seems to me that we should be looking more for a consensus building 
procedure rather than a parliamentary style.  Parliamentary is setup to be 
adversarial, and that is not what we want.  While we do need to vote on 
some issues, it should not be the defacto procedure for dealing with 
something.  Putting in place a complex parliamentary procedure could just 
bog us down further in red tape.

Rob.

P.S.  And all this from Tim who has the bumper sticker "There's no 
government, like NO GOVERNMENT!"  Sheesh <grin>.




--
Rob Hall                                voice  (613) 768-5100
President                                  fax  (613) 820-0777
Momentous.ca Corp.		
rob@momentous.ca                      www.momentous.ca



iti,s