[Ofsrdc] Federation Presidential Appointment and the May State Meeting

[Tim Roberts]

PumaTimid at aol.com wrote:
>
> ...
> After the January state meeting and the subsequent emails and letters
> that have followed, I feel it necessary to ask that the following
> motion be added to the May agenda. This motion should come just after
> the voting of the acceptance or refusal of Jim Roger's resignation.
>  
> I move that Marilyn Schmit move up to assume the remainder, less than
> half, of the current term of presidency as the federation president,
> and then start her own term of presidency as of the Sept 2007 meeting.
>  
> Discussion: As this was the way it was presented to the delegates at
> the January meeting and then voted and passed that this is what we, as
> the delegates agreed should take place for the succession of
> vice-presidents to move up and fill vacant positions above them, I
> feel that this is appropriate according to that vote and the reference
> in our constitution to follow the Robert's Rules of Order.

We need to be very clear about exactly what was passed in January.

The purpose of the point of order was to assert that Barbie Cooper was
not "absent" at the January meeting, and therefore our by-laws did not
apply to the situation.  This was contrary to the position that the
president, based on the advice of the parliamentarian, had come to
during the extensive discussions in January.  Those discussions, unlike
the point of order, were made public on this mailing list.  Because of
that position, the president disagreed with the point of order.  The
ONLY motion that was made at the beginning of the January meeting was to
overrule the decision of the chair in that ruling.

The point of order changed the method of succession on January 28. 
That's ALL that it did.  There was no motion to change policy, there was
no motion to alter the the Practices and Procedures, and there was
certainly no action taken towards amending the by-laws.  A point of
order simply does not have that much power.  It changes one decision at
one point of time.  The by-laws continue as they have always stood.

It is all very interesting to consider alternative methods of filling
vacant offices, and if we were writing our first constitution, or
rewriting our by-laws, it would be productive to have such a
conversation.  However, at this point, it is irrelevant.  Our by-laws
cover our current situation completely.  There is no ambiguity.  It is
the duty of the president to appoint someone to fill a vacant office. 
At this time, Marilyn is performing the duties of the president, and
therefore has sole responsibility to make that appointment, subject to
approval by board vote.  Your suggested motion is, therefore, in
violation of the by-laws, and would be out of order.

-- 
Tim Roberts, timr at probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://probo.probo.com/pipermail/ofsrdc-all/attachments/20070502/3c7f35b9/attachment.html