[19964] in APO-L
Re: Suggestion after a little more time
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas W. Strong Jr.)
Mon Jan 25 11:33:33 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:23:31 -0500
Reply-To: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
From: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9901259172.AA917279599@tec1.apg.army.mil>
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL wrote:
> I made a proposal over the weekend without giving it a rationale or much
> thought. Since then I have had to opportunity to read through some very
> interesting and helpful comments, consult the National Bylaws, and just
> plain think about it.
>
> Here is the proposal with corrections: Any amendment of the Articles of
> Incorporation, National Bylaws, Standard Chapter Articles of Association,
> rituals, ceremonies and Toast Song not receiving the required three-fourths
> vote at a give National Convention shall be ineligible for consideration at
> the following National Convention, unless proposed by the National Board of
> Directors.
[ rationale deleted ]
The first thing that comes to mind is the following sequence:
A brother proposes an amendment.
The amendment is voted down.
the next convention, we see two amendments proposed:
1. to strike the prohibition against renewing amendments
2. the amendment that faled at the previous convention.
Since that would require no more difficult of a vote than the original
motion, the net effect is to add another item to be debated (whether to
strike the prohibition or leave it), rather than shortening the list, so
we could see an increase in the length of debate.
Given that the vast majority of voting delegates only attend one
convention (I know that some return, but they are a fairly small
minority), you have an almost entirely different body at the next
convention. Most people that are active at one convention will no longer
be active at the next one as well, having been replaced by other active
members. Thus, the mostly new body is representing a mostly new
membership. Why should the actions of the previous convention restrict
their ability to consider whatever they wish?
Something else not addressed in the proposal is the issue of scope - if a
motion to raise dues from $12 to $20 fails, would another motion be in
order the next convention to raise them to $15? How about $25? One of
those would be in scope as an amendment to the original motion (and
presumably thus barred from consideration), the other is not. But the one
that could then be submitted could be amended on the floor into the
original motion that failed at the previous convention. This issue of
scope can arise in much more complicated circumstances than just raising
dues, as most of the delegates probably remember from what went on on the
floor.
If a proposal raises more questions than it answers, it it ready to
actually be proposed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas W. Strong Jr. strong@dementia.org
----------------- http://www.dementia.org/~strong -----------------
