Gary Novosielski Posted February 3, 2011 at 10:51 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 10:51 PM Perhaps there is so much confusion here because people seem to not be reading what the original poster actually wrote:"The board member that had abstained made a motion that he wanted to reconsider the appointment and was seconded by a board member. The local school board attorney gave the opinion that the motion was legal."Does anyone here have reason to believe that there was something illegal about the motion to Reconsider?Well, would simply out-of-order do? Because I do have reason to believe that.I'm presuming that what the attorney actually ventured was that the motion was in order, not that the mover need have no fear of arrest and imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM I'm presuming that what the attorney actually ventured was that the motion was in orderYes, it certainly makes it easier to bash the attorney if you presume that he did something wrong rather than actually paying attention to what is being said here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 3, 2011 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 11:15 PM Yes, it certainly makes it easier to bash the attorney if you presume that he did something wrong rather than actually paying attention to what is being said here. Well, bolstered by the fact that the motion was not only allowed but also adopted, I don't think that ranks as all that presumptuous. If he actually did say "legal" then the chair presumed he meant "in order", too. As the Old Man used to say, there is a lot of truth in what actually happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 4, 2011 at 12:32 AM Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 at 12:32 AM The same lawyer who ruled that a board member who abstained could move to reconsider?It is possible that there is some applicable rule or law which would suggest this is the case. Even if this is not the case, the lawyer's knowledge of parliamentary procedure is not necessarily reflective of his knowledge of actual laws. If my doctor told me a member who abstained could move to Reconsider, that is no reason to disregard his medical opinion. I'm presuming that what the attorney actually ventured was that the motion was in order, not that the mover need have no fear of arrest and imprisonment. Well, I agree that "arrest and imprisonment" are unlikely to come into it, but the lawyer may well have been informing the chair that the motion, if adopted, would not lead to legal repercussions for the board.Well, bolstered by the fact that the motion was not only allowed but also adopted, I don't think that ranks as all that presumptuous. If he actually did say "legal" then the chair presumed he meant "in order", too. Then I think the fault lies with the chair, not the lawyer. It should not be surprising that a lawyer will give you his opinion of the law. That's what he's paid to do.It's worth noting that based on the facts presented, the supporters of the motion easily had the votes to adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules and permit the motion to be made again, or to permit any member to make the motion to Reconsider, or any number of other possibilities. This would be true even if the opponents of the motion had stuck around. So I think the fact that the motion to Reconsider was permitted isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 4, 2011 at 07:50 AM Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 at 07:50 AM I like to watch football. Occasionally they throw a flag for an illegal forward pass. I never once thought I'd see a QB hauled off in handcuffs. This thread is ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. Seriously, I don't think it's unreasonable to take the statement that the lawyer opined the motion was legal as referring to RONR. After all, if it were indeed a statement about other than RONR, I'd expect the poster to get a "friendly" reminder about the purpose of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 4, 2011 at 09:08 AM Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 at 09:08 AM This thread is ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. Yes, I think our only hope for salvation is that the original poster takes Mr. Honemann's approach to this thread.Well, certainly the first four words were absolutely correct. I saw no need to read further. Seriously, I don't think it's unreasonable to take the statement that the lawyer opined the motion was legal as referring to RONR.While it's not uncommon for laymen to use the term "legal" in relation to rules rather than laws, I think it is safe to assume that a lawyer is using the proper definition unless he suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM While it's not uncommon for laymen to use the term "legal" in relation to rules rather than laws, I think it is safe to assume that a lawyer is using the proper definition unless he suggests otherwise.So the chair asks the attorney if the motion to reconsider, made by a member who abstained, is "legal" (meaning, because the chair is not a lawyer, "legitimate" or "in order") and the attorney replies that it's "legal" (meaning, because he's an attorney, that the motion violates no law, regardless of what RONR has to say).Is that the way this is being understood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 5, 2011 at 08:23 AM Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 at 08:23 AM So the chair asks the attorney if the motion to reconsider, made by a member who abstained, is "legal" (meaning, because the chair is not a lawyer, "legitimate" or "in order") and the attorney replies that it's "legal" (meaning, because he's an attorney, that the motion violates no law, regardless of what RONR has to say).Is that the way this is being understood?That is one possible scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.