At 6:00 PM -0700 4/7/00, FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >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. > Ginger H. & Ginger C., If the motion is phrased as a censure or a sanction or anything like that, people who would vote for a simple motion to declare EO-2000 void and without authority might not vote for a motion to censure. I think there are probably two or three people on the Board who disapprove of the Order and would vote to overturn it, but who view it as an innocent misinterpretation of the ByLaws and would not be comfortable voting to rap Tim's knuckles over it. (Joe, for example, has expressed something like that.) Since any motion needs 2/3 majority to pass, I would be *very* cautious about amending Motion 00-8 to be any harsher than it is. It doesn't do much good to put your righteous outrage into a Motion if it results in the Executive Order standing. -- Teri