CALL FOR VOTE: Motion to withdraw Motion 2012-L

[Michael von Keitz]

The mover has requested that the motion be withdrawn. Please vote in the poll above.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

the motion.

2012-L CFC Governors Ethics and Code of Conduct Motion

[Bob Armstrong]

Since I am the one who requested that the Permission of the Assembly be sought, I assume it is appropriate to repost my opinion here:

" Withdrawal of Motions - Vote Required

I believe under Roberts Rules of Order, a mover does not have a unilateral right to withdraw a motion once it has been filed with the Assembly of Governors. Any decision to take the motion off the table requires a vote of the governors to allow such.

I want such a vote on this question of withdrawal re the " Code " motion 2012-L , since the mover has indicated he would prefer to have it taken off the agenda.

The reason is that I want the motion NOT withdrawn. I will be voting against the withdrawal. I want the motion voted on as originally submitted and planned.

That way the motion can be defeated, and then it cannot be brought back in front of us again for a certain length of time ( I'm not sure what that is though ) - the idea is that the Assembly not be harassed by continuous bringing of unacceptable motions. Also, it forces movers to make sure their motions are in acceptable shape before taking the significant step of filing them before the governors, not a trivial step.

Bob A"

[Lyle Craver]

I'm not aware there are rules concerning how often a motion can be re-introduced. My guess would be that it would be the Roberts Rules' equivalent of the chess rule that it is absolutely forbidden to annoy your opponent. I think we are a LONG way from that point!

I support the concept of this motion but do not support the specifics on this motion. I do think further Governor discussion is needed to form a consensus which I don't think currently exists. This probably means a consensus on several different areas.

I understand some may feel we need to move forward but to my mind this is the sort of thing that needs to be 'talked out' before proceeding and I don't think we're at that point yet.

[By the way the President has indicated to me that he will not be voting on this motion to withdraw though he has given me instructions which way his vote is to be cast in the event of a tie vote]

[Ken Craft]

I'm not sure consensus is possible if the ideas in this motion are the basis for discussion. This is the second meeting this has been introduced at without any substantive change. How many times will we allow the proponents to introduce this motion and withdraw it when it becomes clear that it is headed for defeat?

[Christopher Mallon]

The rule is if a motion is defeated it cannot be re-introduced at the same meeting. Essentially a worthless rule as far as the CFC is concerned, it's more designed to prevent one single issue from dominating any one given (in-person) meeting.

[Lyle Craver]

Even if we had such a rule there would be nothing to prevent a minor change to the motion which would then be re-introduced as a "different" motion.

To the Governors that think repeated introduction of motions is a bad thing I say what would you offer as an alternate? It is easy to imagine "solutions" that are worse than the "problems" they purport to "fix".

There are always unintended consequences.

[Christopher Mallon]

Even if we had such a rule there would be nothing to prevent a minor change to the motion which would then be re-introduced as a "different" motion.

Actually, the rule in Robert's, IIRC, is much more strict... once a TOPIC has been dealt with and defeated, no further motions may be introduced on that topic. It's fairly broad too, so for example in a regular meeting if we discussed and voted down this motion, any further motions or discussion of Governor ethics, conduct or possibly even discipline would be out of order.

Still not really applicable in our situation of course.