We will be having a special meeting later this month, in order to deal with McKim/Rekhson and Zeromskis/Mallon. Should the NFP Act Committee Report be rejected, Mallon/Denommee will be voted on at that time as well.
Printable View
We will be having a special meeting later this month, in order to deal with McKim/Rekhson and Zeromskis/Mallon. Should the NFP Act Committee Report be rejected, Mallon/Denommee will be voted on at that time as well.
Actually the NFP motion was an amendment, not a new motion - but I didn't have the text of what the actual motion was so I couldn't phrase it properly.
My understanding of your intention is essentially for a new report to be presented in April, based on a mandate of covering the minimum requirements for compliance with the Act. It seems better to raise that question if this report is rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon
The really democratic way would have been to put this compliance to NFP under discussion first for at least one quarter...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz
I believe I was clear in my intention that this was an amendment. If I had had the actual wording of the motion, I would have been even more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon
I am saying that requiring the committee to come back with a new report is not an amendment. If you aren't happy with the report, vote against it. A successful vote to table it is tantamount to those in opposition voting to disband the committee, as I am fairly certain this group will not be redrafting its proposals. As such, this vote should continue as is. If it's successful, great - Les can start redrafting the Constitution. If it's not, great - a new committee may form and present its own report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon