Dan Honemann Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM And a Point of Order that the maker of the motion is not a member is not incidental to the ruling/appeal that the motion violates the constitution. Is that it?The Point of Order that the maker of the main motion is not a member is not a point of order arising out of the appeal which is immediately pending. As a consequence, it does not take precedence over the pending appeal (p. 247, ll. 13-14), and the pending appeal does not yield to it (p. 256, ll. 15-16).Yeah, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 7, 2013 at 03:06 PM Report Share Posted April 7, 2013 at 03:06 PM Yeah, that's it. The RONR MB overnight officer, being someone of lugubrious mien might not be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 8, 2013 at 04:23 AM Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 at 04:23 AM Okay, what if the order is reverse.Person #1 makes a motion, Motion Z. A point of order is raised that Person #1 is not a member capable of making Motion Z. The chair rules and his decision is appealed (the bylaws are ambiguous in this regard).As the appear is pending, a point of order is raise that Motion Z, if adopted, would violate the bylaws and that no one can make the motion. Can the chair rule the point of order well taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 8, 2013 at 09:33 AM Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 at 09:33 AM Okay, what if the order is reverse.Person #1 makes a motion, Motion Z. A point of order is raised that Person #1 is not a member capable of making Motion Z. The chair rules and his decision is appealed (the bylaws are ambiguous in this regard).As the appear is pending, a point of order is raise that Motion Z, if adopted, would violate the bylaws and that no one can make the motion. Can the chair rule the point of order well taken.The Point of Order that Motion Z, if adopted, would violate the bylaws is not a point of order arising out of the appeal which is immediately pending. As a consequence, it does not take precedence over the pending appeal (p. 247, ll. 13-14), and the pending appeal does not yield to it (p. 256, ll. 15-16). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM The Point of Order that Motion Z, if adopted, would violate the bylaws is not a point of order arising out of the appeal which is immediately pending. As a consequence, it does not take precedence over the pending appeal (p. 247, ll. 13-14), and the pending appeal does not yield to it (p. 256, ll. 15-16).Once that point of order/appeal was decided (assuming the Person #1 could make the motion), could there then be a second Point of Order that Motion Z violated the bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM Once that point of order/appeal was decided (assuming the Person #1 could make the motion), could there then be a second Point of Order that Motion Z violated the bylaws?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.