4. Instructions/Questions/Comments on the On-line Meeting Procedures

[Lyle Craver]

Voting has started on the amendment for the rating motion and goes through the start of voting on the main motions which is scheduled for day 5 (Thursday) @ 9 ET.

Concerning the specific points raised by Bob and Hugh:

I will do my best to comply with these deadlines though I normally am still at work at 6pm in Vancouver - so I find the time deadlines rather "Western Hostile". Bob and Hugh are not the only ones frustrated with the overly strict timeline of the motion creating the online meetings (though in fairness Bob was the original mover of the motion establishing them). In fact I voted against the original motion for the very good reason that by placing the regulations on the Online Meetings into section 1 it made them part of the Constitution and thus requiring a super-majority to amend.

And make no mistake about it - having them on the first week of each quarter DOES create administrative headaches that the Executive is powerless to change as the regulations do not give the Executive (including the President and Secretary) the leeway to do so.

I pointed all this out at the time and the Governors saw fit to pass it anyway - I thought then as now that the idea was right but that the overly strict regulations created a straightjacket that was bound to cause grief.

Had it been MY choice I would either have not specified a time or specified midnight ET (or even PT) as it better reflects the realities that we are all volunteers who do this in our spare time and that most of us are employed during the day across the time zones that make up this country.

I think a good solution would be to have a frank and open discussion on the Online Meeting regulations with a view to presenting something either at the AGM or the first online meeting of the new year.

[Kevin Pacey]

Just to verify what I believe I understand from Section 2 of the Handbook, am I correct that it is now too late (since 6pm yesterday) to propose an amendment to an existing motion (or for that matter to propose any new motion), no matter how much the existing motion has been discussed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kevin:

As drafter of the meeting rules, I can advise that that is what the rules say - no amendment of agenda motions after 6:00 PM EDT on day # 3.

The idea is that there has to be time to discuss any amendments before voting. So day # 4 would be available to discuss the amending motion, before voting on it. And the rules also state that the amending motion is to be voted on, along with all other agenda motions, at 9:00 PM EDT on day # 4.

Initially at an earlier meeting, there was some chaos when this rule was forgotten, and an amendment allowed late, and then the whole issue of when to discuss it , and how long, and when to vote on it, and when to vote on the main motion ( amended or not ) all blew up, and caused a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What then happens under the rules, is that when the result of the amending motion is known at 6:00 PM EDT on day # 7 ( along with the results of all the agenda motions ), the meeting is then extended for 3 more days to day # 10. The vote on the main motion ( amended of not ) starts on day # 7, and closes at 6:00 PM EDT on day # 10.

This system was approved by the governors when the rules were passed, and has been used in one of the prior meetings.

But subsequently the Presidents and Secretary have departed from the rules, and improvised with respect to amending motions, sometimes having them voted on earlier than the start of voting on all motions, as is happening with the motion to amend 2012-S on the Bonus Points. Voting is happening now, and is to close at the time when voting starts on all agenda motions ( tomorrow at 9:00 PM ET ), so that the main motion ( amended or not ) can be voted on with the other agenda motions.

So I guess the President will have to rule whether he and the Secretary are going to depart from the " amendment timing rule ", and still allow amendments after 6:00 PM EDT yesterday ( day # 3 ).

Bob A

[Lyle Craver]

My understanding is that we are past the point for amendments though motions may be withdrawn or of course voted down.

I do not particularly like that but that's how I interpret the rules.

After a couple of disastrous meeting extensions in 2010-2011 where Governor participation really fell off during the extension (the fact that it was Thanksgiving probably had a lot to do with that), I have on different occasions recommended to the President that where there are motions with amendments we have conditional votes (e.g. a - voting on the amendment, b - if the amendment passes count my vote as ___, c - if the amendment fails count my vote as ___) or alternately to defer a matter to the next meeting.

The President often follows my recommendations but certainly is not bound to.

There is of course no perfect solution - but we do our best and I have at times recommended to Governors that my own view was 'we can't now vote on an amendment and my personal opinion is that if we can't amend this one we had best defeat it and try again in 3 months'.

The essential problem is that the 2010-18 motion that created the Online Meetings was ultra-rigid and removed presidential discretion in ways that I don't think were or are good for the Federation. I don't pretend to have all the answers but we can definitely improve on the status quo.

[Michael Barron]

message moved to own thread.

[Kevin Pacey]

My understanding is that we are past the point for amendments though motions may be withdrawn or of course voted down.
...
I do not particularly like that but that's how I interpret the rules.
...
The President often follows my recommendations but certainly is not bound to.

As you may have noticed, I (undaunted) proposed an amendment to Motion 2012-H in its thread, which was then seconded. I am making this post to increase my chances that the chair (the President) won't miss my request for a ruling on whether to allow a vote on this amendment before this meeting is over.

[Michael von Keitz]

For those unable to vote within the meeting itself, for whatever reason, I'm certain either Lyle or myself would be happy to take your vote by e-mail.

[Michael von Keitz]

As you may have noticed, I (undaunted) proposed an amendment to Motion 2012-H in its thread, which was then seconded. I am making this post to increase my chances that the chair (the President) won't miss my request for a ruling on whether to allow a vote on this amendment before this meeting is over.

As I just received the permissions I wanted as of today, I'm inclined to do the following: I will post a sticky, notifying the meeting of your amendment and the vote on 2012-H will be structured something like below.

I am:

A) FOR amendment; FOR motion
B) FOR amendment; AGAINST motion
C) FOR amendment; ABSTAIN motion
D) AGAINST amendment; FOR motion
E) AGAINST amendment; AGAINST motion
F) AGAINST amendment; ABSTAIN motion
G) ABSTAIN amendment; FOR motion
H) ABSTAIN amendment; AGAINST motion
I) ABSTAIN amendment; ABSTAIN motion

[Christopher Mallon]

A) FOR amendment; FOR motion
B) FOR amendment; AGAINST motion
C) FOR amendment; ABSTAIN motion
D) AGAINST amendment; FOR motion
E) AGAINST amendment; AGAINST motion
F) AGAINST amendment; ABSTAIN motion
G) ABSTAIN amendment; FOR motion
H) ABSTAIN amendment; AGAINST motion
I) ABSTAIN amendment; ABSTAIN motion

Unfortunately I don't think that covers all the options... you might be FOR amendment, FOR motion with amendment but AGAINST motion without amendment.

[Lyle Craver]

I independently reached the same conclusion as Chris (and provided in private e-mail to the President an example of a recent motion I would have voted yes to an amendment on but to which I voted no to the main motion) which is why I have written the note on the sticky concerning how the amended motion is to be dealt with.

Basically the correct method is:
Vote 1 - on the amendment
Vote 2a - on the amended motion if amendment passed
Vote 2b - on the original motion if amendment failed

One of 2a or 2b will be disregarded but we cannot yet know which one. This method allows a Governor to support the amended motion but not the original or vice versa.

It is complicated but really the only fair way.

I wish I could put the amendment vote and the two motion votes in a single thread but vBulletin only allows one poll per thread.