Re: Private - Reprise - Getting Back to E-Memberships

[John I Jones <jijones@usjoneses.com>]

Hi Hal,

I have interspersed some comments below:

Just as an overall comment, according to our charter we can establish  
what ever process(es) we wish to use.

On Mar 30, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Harold Stahly wrote:

> John,
>
> My first reaction to your suggested procedure is that it might be  
> unnecessarily complicated.
>
> In the first place, I'm a little uncomfortable with having anyone  
> filtering motions on s merit basis.  There have for years been  
> rumblings of discontent based on a perception that too much power  
> resides in AIS officers and board members without regard to the  
> concerns of the membership.  I disagree with such rumblings, but I  
> think this is a perception that exists.  A system that has even  
> fewer individuals setting priorities on the importance of motions,  
> or even allowing the motion to "die in the hopper" or somewhere  
> else would fuel this (mis)perception.

I understand your concerns. I had the same some time ago when I first  
proposed the standing rules on how we communicate electrronically.

I don't really think that there will often be a problem with too many  
motions at the same time, Most times the motions will just be handled  
sequentially. However, I think we should have in place a process that  
enables us to expeditiously deal with the off chance that something  
needs to be handled out of order of submission.

> In addition, AIS has such a comparatively small number  of persons  
> making motions, and these persons not each with a partisan  
> political axe to grind or upcoming election in doubt, so such  
> elaborate procedural rules are not needed.  Submitting each motion  
> to a committee I think would complicate things.  (For one thing,  
> our standing committees are in most cases a single individual  
> working at a necessary job and not set up to function as a committee.)

I agree, we do not need something elaborate, not do we heed (yet)  
another committee. Having a process that flows simply (i.e., motions  
are submitted as they are today and are processed in the manner  
prescribed) but allow for a 2d motion to be discussed while the first  
is being voted on yet has an out for dealing with an immediate  
problem does not seem to complicate things too much.

If it happened that a particular motion was not taken under  
consideration before a Spring or Fall board meeting because of other  
priorities, that motion could certainly be brought up at the next  
board meeting
> If a motion under discussion seems to require committee  
> consideration, a motion to table until a pro tem  committee has  
> considered and reported on the matter can always be made.  A motion  
> to table, I believe, does not require a second (I could be wrong on  
> this matter) and always stops all discussion until a vote is taken  
> on the motion to table.  The presiding officer can not make a  
> motion but can suggest that a matter be studied and reported on by  
> a committee, or if she/he so wishes can ask that a motion to table  
> be made.  (And the motion to table may be made to stop  
> consideration of the matter until some specified later time, or it  
> can be made without qualification, in which case the matter is dead  
> if the tabling motion passes.)

The use of "Tabling a Motion" is confusing at best and we need to  
define what  we mean by it. I read conflicting definitions that are  
purportedly "according to Robert's Rules." Some places RRs says that  
adding a time to a Tabling motion ( I move to table this motion until  
XXX) is not allowed. Other times it is said that Tabling actually  
kills all discussion until a motion to "Take it Off the Table" is  
made and if that motion is not made within a certain time the motion  
dies. Other documents seem to contradict all that.

Be that as it may, we can define what we mean by the motion to Table  
to suit our own needs. It is only when our Standing rules are silent  
on an issue that we revert to Robert's Rules.

My intent is simple, flexible and useful.

I think that collectively we are smart enough to come up with  
something that suits our needs and wise enough to change things as  
our needs evolve

John

> In any case, I like the idea that you are working on, and my only  
> general suggestion is that it be made streamlined, simple and  
> effective.  I bow to others as to just what that might be :)!
>
> Hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:13 PM, John I Jones wrote:
>
> > In addition to other changes to our electronic voting processes, I  
> > had another idea that I wanted to bounce off of you both.
> >
> > When a member of the House of Representatives wants to submit a  
> > bill for consideration, they "drop it in the Hopper."
> >
> > Then the House Parliamentarian, at the delegation of the Speaker  
> > of the House, refers each measure to the appropriate committee(s)  
> > of jurisdiction, and the bill proceeds through its approval process.
> >
> > I am thinking that we should have a "Hopper" so that in the event  
> > that a motion may not be introduced on AISDiscuss, it may be held  
> > in abeyance until the appropriate time and then introduced to the  
> > list on behalf of the initiator. The AIS Secretary would be the  
> > "keeper of the Hopper" and the AIS President would provide the  
> > priority for introducing the motions based on their evaluation of  
> > the significance of the motion and its importance to the conduct  
> > of AIS business.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Michelle Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > If you are really making a new motion it can not be intertained  
> > > until the period for voting on the existing motion has ceased  
> > > which won't be until April 5.
> > >
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > > On 3/30/2010 8:03 AM, John I Jones wrote:
> > > > I move that the AIS immediately stop offering multiple year  
> > > > Irisregister subscriptions.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > > --
> > > > To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> > > > <aissecretary@irises.org>
> > > > The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> > > > http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > -
> > > To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> > > <aissecretary@irises.org>
> > > The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> > > http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> > <aissecretary@irises.org>
> > The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> > http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> <aissecretary@irises.org>
> The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/