Ginger is right. I did not ask for more time on the vote on Motion 00-8. I said we HAD to VOTE soon, seat a Census Rep and then move on to the discussion of Motion 00-6. That one is the BIGGIE! Pam Ginger wrote: > > Tim, > > Your comments are uncalled for. In light of your recent > actions maybe you should review the role of a Chair > in a meeting. Your comments about respect for board > member are like the pot calling the kettle black, since > your recent actions clearly demonstrate that you have > no respect for this board or it's function. > > BTW: Maybe you should read Pam's note again. > > 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 > >> > >> > >