YES! And just so my vote isn't misinterpreted: >Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in >question Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] call the question >Jim, > >Did you not see that the others still wished to keep discussion going - ie >Holly, in the note you answered to? Also Pam asked for more time shortly >thereafter. > >Do you not respect fellow Board members wishes to do so? > >However, be that as it may since you have Called the Question and Virginia >has given it a second - > >Board members: > >Please vote Yes, No, or Abstain - to the Call the Question request. > >This vote is only to determine whether or not discussion shall continue >regarding Motion 00-8, it is NOT a vote on Motion 00-8. > >Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question >Voting NO means that you wish discussion to continue on the Motion in question >Voting Abstain means that you don't care either way > >2/3 of members voting after the quorum is reached required for the Call the >Question to pass. > >Tim > > >At 06:33 AM 4/11/00 -0400, you wrote: >>Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask >for a >>second myself. >> >>Jim >> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >> >>> At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >>> >I call the question... >>> >Jim >>> > >>> >Holly Timm wrote: >>> > >>> >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: >>> >> >Tim, >>> >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a >>> >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion >>> >> >period ended some time ago. >>> >> >>> >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and >>> >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the >>> >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less >>> >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point >than >>> >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings >>> >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are >>> >> bombarding the lists and the board members. >>> >> >>> >> Holly >>> > >>> >>> Jim your call dies for lack of a second. >>> >>> Section 16, Page 199 >>> EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE >>> QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I >>> move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in >>> nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this >>> section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does >>> not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. >>> >>> Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call >>> for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before >>> or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any >>> objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, >>> he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has >>> already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order >>> the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" >>> seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, >>> taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it >>> is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who >>> wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; >>> 382-384). >>> >>> Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on >>> the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". >>> >>> Tim >> >> >