Madam Chair: I request you suspend this voting until the Parliamentarian can rule on the concerns I have raised regarding this motion.

In response to Joy’s Point of Order, stated as follows: “Madam Chair: I request you suspend this voting until the Parliamentarian can rule on the concerns I have raised regarding this motion.” I hereby point out as follows: Point of Order refer to Parliamentary Procedure; however, the Motion is already on the floor and must continue to vote. The concerns Joy has raised about precedent are not a Parliamentary procedure issue; they are for the assembly (Advisory Board) to decide. The point of order raised by Joy is not a question about a mistake, error or omission in following the rules of the assembly or Parliamentary procedure, so is not well taken. The proposer of the motion could have withdrawn the motion prior to it being submitted to vote; it was not. Now to withdraw a Motion on the floor it is required as follows: Page 95: Permission to Withdraw a Motion. "After a motion has been stated to the assembly by the presiding officer it becomes the property of that body, and the proposer may withdraw it only if no objection is raised. If a member objects, the proposer or some other member may move that the proposer ‘be allowed to withdraw the motion.' This motion is undebatable, can have no other motions applied to it, and requires a majority vote. "The consent of the seconder is not necessary. A motion can be withdrawn if there is no objection, or with permission from the assembly, up to the moment the final vote on it is taken,..." At this point, if Joy wants to stop the vote on Motion 2015/16-02, then she must ask the proposer to withdraw it. If the proposer refuses, or if the assembly refuses permission, the vote proceeds. Even if a vote on adding a link would set a precedent (which I don't believe it is in the context suggested by Joy) that is not a Parliamentary procedure issue to be decided by a parliamentarian. The Board has the right to set any precedent they want to that doesn't violate our Bylaws or rules. The argument posed by Joy that if she wanted to move her SDGenWeb.org site to another URL, does not violate the Bylaws of the Project and does not require a vote by the Advisory Board. Actually, it is the exact opposite. The Bylaws of the Project “REQUIRE” the national site to link to the appropriate state site, whether it remains at the prior URL or not. Also, the National Bylaws state that a volunteer can house their site at any location they desire. Case in point would be when Kansas moved their site to another URL last year. We then changed the URL to Kansas without a vote. I also argue that the delinking of the original FLGenWeb site and the linking to the new FLGenWeb site also debunks this argument. Does any Member of the Advisory Board wish to move that the Motion be withdrawn? If not, then the Motion proceeds directly to the Vote. Denise Wells National Coordinator 2014-2016 The USGenWeb Project www.usgenweb.org <http://www.usgenweb.org> Celebrating in 2016 the 20th Anniversary of The USGenWeb Project! Look for us at the 2016 NGS Conference - Booth 431 <http://fp37.a2zinc.net/clients/NGS/NGS2016/public/eventmap.aspx?shExhList=1>! USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda (Agenda to be updated shortly) On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Joy Fisher via <board@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Madam Chair: > I request you suspend this voting until the Parliamentarian can rule on > the concerns I have raised regarding this motion. > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BOARD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >