Yes Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm