Re: Hostas in sun; Convention
- To: hosta-open@mallorn.com
- Subject: Re: Hostas in sun; Convention
- From: i* <r*@netnitco.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 07:56:56 -0500
- References: <6751b751.24ab00b8@aol.com>
At 07:53 AM 6/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>CCREDUX@aol.com wrote:
>>
> Was a vote then taken on the main motion, which required
>> a 2/3 majority?
>> If so, was it a voice vote?
>**********
>Clyde it is hard to remember all the details, but a motion to table the
>vote on the Bi-laws changes, wes brought to the floor and seconded. It
>was defeted, but I think it was by a non counted vote.
>Ran
>>
>> The most terrible thing about the procedure was that the motion to table
was
>> ruled out of order. I repeat===A motion to table is NEVER out of order, is
>> not debatable and a vote must be taken. Simple majority is req'd.
>>
>> Clyde Crockett z5
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>> message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
>
>clyde, i have to agree with u, a motion ot table would be in order, and
maybe might have been the easiest way out, some should have risen to a
point of parlementary procedure, wich must be answered, then all thisnwould
have been moot
indianabob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN