[19969] in APO-L
Countercounter arguments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL)
Mon Jan 25 12:28:20 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:21:02 -0500
Reply-To: jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL
From: jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
I would like an opportunity to directly respond to brother Strong's
comments.
Brother Strong wrote: "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."
My response: I believe this argument is flawed. As I understand things,
the legislation would not go into effect until the close of the convention.
Thus if the motion to strike (part 1.) were to pass (part 2.) still could
not come about.
Also noted by Brother Strong: "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?"
My response: I am not sure on the parliamentary procedure on this. I
would really be interested in someone that does know chiming in (Brother
Morrone if you are listening in on all this perhaps). It may be a question
that the Credentials & Rules Committee would need to answer. Regardless,
it is my understanding that most monetary proposals come out of the
National Board as recommendations by the Treasurer after he/ she has
reviewed the financial needs of the fraternity and thus would be exempt
from my proposal. Also, if it was determine, by more knowledgeable people
than myself, that indeed this could pose a problem, this could be solved by
merely amending my proposal by stating "except in matters dealing with
money" or "finances of the fraternity."
I also feel that there is an effective counter argument to the charges made
that there is nearly a 100% turn-over in delegates from convention to
convention. I just need some time to think of how to properly phrase it
(anyone who thinks they can help in this, I would greatly appreciate it).
And besides, as I noted in the rationale, the piece of legislation does
have the potential of causing some harm, but it will do greater good.
This is a work in progress so keep the comments coming.
In LFBB,
Oscar
