[Ofsrdc] Confusion about the Presidential Succession Proposal

[Kay & Jim Rogers]

Jim and I think it should be pointed out that no matter who is becomes
president, someone ends up serving more than a one year term or less
than the one year term. We feel like that person should at least be
elected.
Kay


-----Original Message-----
From: ofsrdc-all-bounces at squaredance.gen.or.us
[mailto:ofsrdc-all-bounces at squaredance.gen.or.us] On Behalf Of Tim
Roberts
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 8:54 PM
To: OFSRDC
Cc: Tim Roberts
Subject: [Ofsrdc] Confusion about the Presidential Succession Proposal

Neta Minten said at today's meeting that she was still confused about
what she was voting on at the beginning of the January meeting.  I take
responsibility for that; it is part of my job to make sure everyone is
clear about the procedures being followed at any point in time.  I can
only say that I was flustered by the way the meeting opened and wasn't
thinking things through.  I will try to summarize in a few paragraphs
what happened and how we got there.  The minutes of the meeting have a
relatively complete transcript of the goings-on at the meeting.

When Barbie Cooper died early in January, leaving the president's seat
vacant, Jim Rogers contacted me for an opinion on how we should move
forward.  After going over our "holy documents" for a few days, I 
presented my opinion on this mailing list, stating that Jim (as 1st VP) 
would need to perform the duties of the President by appointing a 
replacement, who would then serve the remainder of the year.

Mr Marsh and Mr Bosch disagreed with the details of that opinion.
Rather
than trying to work out a compromise in the weeks before the meeting,
they choose to present their own opinion immediately after the opening
of the January 28 meeting as a "point of order".  Their assertion was
based on the premise that Barbie Cooper was not "absent" at that
meeting, 
and therefore my opinion, based on our own by-laws, was not applicable.

A "point of order" is an assertion that some part of the meeting has
not proceeded according to the proper procedures.  The chairman must
evaluate the point of order and decide whether there has, in fact,
been a violation.  In the January meeting, Jim ruled that the point of 
order did not have merit and denied it.

Mr Marsh then made a motion to overrule Jim's decision, an action
that is formally called an "appeal from the decision of the chair".
A parliamentary body has the right to challenge any decision made by the
chair, although it is rarely done in practice.  THAT is the motion that
was debated at length and eventually voted on by secret ballot.

When the motion to overrule the chair passed, the procedure in that
point
of order was executed, resulting in the automatic promotion of Jim and
Marilyn, leaving the 2VP chair empty.  Jim never had the opportunity to
present the plan we had agreed on.  (Ironically, the resulting makeup of
the board was exactly identical to what it would have been, had Jim been
allowed to speak.)

However, a point of order cannot change by-laws or P&Ps.  In January,
reasonable people read the same documents and came to differing
conclusions, and that situation could still happen again.  In order to
fix that and remove any ambiguity, we formed a committee to study what
modifications might need to be made to the by-laws and/or P&Ps.

The document I presented today was the recommendation of that committee.

A question came up asking whether the proposed amendment was "read"
today,
for purposes of the amendment procedure in Article 8 of the By-Laws.
In my opinion, since the motion to accept the recommendation was
postponed
until November, we can't really say that the proposed amendment was
read, since it hasn't really been proposed yet. Thus, as I see it, if
the motion to accept the report is approved in November, we will not be
able to vote on adopting the changes it proposes until January.

Special committees dissolve when the president that formed them
goes out of office.  Thus, if the motion to accept the recommendation is

voted down, Marilyn would need to form a new committee to continue that
work.  Alternatively, she could decide to do nothing, and defer action 
on this for some future year after things have settled down.

If you have questions on or disagreements with what I've said here, 
please let me know.
--
Tim Roberts, timr at probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
_______________________________________________
ofsrdc-all mailing list
ofsrdc-all at squaredance.gen.or.us
http://www.probo.com/mailman/listinfo/ofsrdc-all