Tim, This is becoming absurd. Why not just let us vote? Either the cavalry has arrived or they are not coming. I did read those messages, did you? Only the first one said we needed more discussion on this particular Motion. I vote **YES** to cease discussion on this motion and actually vote on the question on the floor before we forget what that motion was. The discussion and postings to this list haven't kept that motion in mind. Just in case the unwanted commentary clouded my vote, it is ****YES**** Tim Wrote: "Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question" Jim Powell Jr 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 > > > >