Alex Meed Posted January 19, 2020 at 06:18 AM Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 at 06:18 AM At a meeting, a society adopts a motion "to designate bananas as the official fruit of the Society", in addition to multiple other motions designating various other food items, such as official cereal and official pancake mixes. Later, the members learn unsavory information about bananas, to the extent that a member moves to rescind their designation as the official fruit. In debate, another member speaks in support of the rescission. The member's remarks include the following: "This is why we should be wary of designating official food items in the future—we always run the risk of not having enough information, and then we have to publicly embarrass ourselves by rescinding the designation." Because the member's comments do not relate directly to the pending question, which is about bananas, are the member's comments in order? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 19, 2020 at 06:29 AM Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 at 06:29 AM Would you allow those comments during the original discussion of the motion? If you would, then they are in order during discussion of rescission. For what it's worth, I think the topic of whether or not the organization should be designating official foods at all is germane to a motion about designating an official fruit. I think it would be way too narrow to limit the discussion just to whether or not bananas should be the official fruit. But the decision is up to the presiding officer, subject to appeal to the assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:02 PM For what it's worth, my opinion is also that it is in order. When the question was pending, the question was whether to make bananas the official fruit. An argument against official fruits seems to me to be in order, since it is one argument for voting no. There are two actions involved in passing the motion, and opposition to either is reason to oppose the motion. If there were already an official fruit, i.e. if the office were established in the bylaws, or if a motion had been passed calling for the designation of an official fruit, then I think it would be out of order (except that you could say, in the latter case, "if this motion is voted down, I will move to rescind the standing rule calling for the designation of a fruit," or, in the former case, you could say that if the motion is voted down, you plan to move to amend the bylaws). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:47 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 at 10:47 PM Agreeing with Messrs Katz and Kapur, I also think the comments were germane and in order. I can see how I might feel differently if the society had previously adopted a bylaw provision or other rule in essence requiring the society to designate "official foods of the society". In that case, it could be argued that the member's comments were out of order, but the member could then do as Mr. Katz and tell the assembly that if the motion to rescind the banana as the official fruit is voted down, he will move to rescind or amend the rule requiring that the society designate "official foods"... or at least the designation of an official fruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anon Posted January 20, 2020 at 09:07 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2020 at 09:07 PM I'm confused. The member has indicated it will be an embarrassment to rescind the motion, yet you say the member is debating in support of the rescission. Which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 20, 2020 at 09:29 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2020 at 09:29 PM 16 minutes ago, anon said: I'm confused. The member has indicated it will be an embarrassment to rescind the motion, yet you say the member is debating in support of the rescission. Which is it? I think the point the member is trying to make is that the organization perhaps tends to endorse foods prematurely or unwisely and then has to rescind the endorsement. He apparently finds this embarrassing and wants the society to stop endorsing foods altogether. My guess is that he thinks it will be even more embarrassing to not rescind the banana endorsement so he favors the rescission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Meed Posted January 21, 2020 at 01:27 AM Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2020 at 01:27 AM 4 hours ago, anon said: I'm confused. The member has indicated it will be an embarrassment to rescind the motion, yet you say the member is debating in support of the rescission. Which is it? 3 hours ago, Richard Brown said: I think the point the member is trying to make is that the organization perhaps tends to endorse foods prematurely or unwisely and then has to rescind the endorsement. He apparently finds this embarrassing and wants the society to stop endorsing foods altogether. My guess is that he thinks it will be even more embarrassing to not rescind the banana endorsement so he favors the rescission. Mr. Brown is correct as to what my intent was; the member feels that rescission is embarrassing as a general rule but necessary in this instance, but wants the society to be less eager to designate official food items so that it doesn't make choices that it later feels obligated to rescind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 21, 2020 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2020 at 02:56 AM I think it would be in order. The question is if there should by an official, not just it it should be the banana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts