In a message dated 04/07/2000 8:24:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > Well would someone please explain to me how we > can have a motion to overrule an action that the > NC had no right to take in the first place. > > He should have been declared out of order, which > he most certainly was! It is my feeling that instead > of declaring him out of order and instructing him to > refrain from any further actions of this nature that > we are setting a precedent for future boards. Moving > to, what basically amounts to a, veto of his actions > implies that he had the right to take those actions in > the first place. Which he clearly did not! > > > Ginger It's a rare day when Ginger and I agree, but I do agree with this. <g> I think maybe a Motion for Sanctions or something similar would be a better way to handle it and avoid setting dangerous precedents by implication or inference as Ginger has pointed out. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau