Guest -Guest Posted September 30, 2010 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 07:23 PM After the law chairman counted final votes, he told main motion was failed at almost end of announcement as same time as a parlimentarian interrupted and told law chairman to re-vote. The law chairman told members to re-vote. Right or wrong processing from parlimentarian's interruption. No members at ADM asked for re-vote before he interrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 30, 2010 at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 07:33 PM After the law chairman counted final votes, he told main motion was failed at almost end of announcement as same time as a parlimentarian interrupted and told law chairman to re-vote. The law chairman told members to re-vote. Right or wrong processing from parlimentarian's interruption. No members at ADM asked for re-vote before he interrupted.What was the motion. In some cases, i.e. filling blanks, that would be proper procedure. In most cases, the motion would be lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted September 30, 2010 at 08:01 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 08:01 PM After the law chairman counted final votes, he told main motion was failed at almost end of announcement as same time as a parlimentarian interrupted and told law chairman to re-vote. The law chairman told members to re-vote. Right or wrong processing from parlimentarian's interruption. No members at ADM asked for re-vote before he interrupted.Pretty clearly, the parliamentarian had no business interrupting the announcement of the result of the vote and declaring aloud, for all to hear, that the vote must be retaken. Had I been in the chair, I would have ruled that the parliamentarian's outburst was disorderly and admonished him not to repeat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 30, 2010 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 08:04 PM What was the motion. In some cases, i.e. filling blanks, that would be proper procedure. In most cases, the motion would be lost.Members understood that motion clearly. The motion was very serious. They did went ahead and voted. Law chairman(he is against that motion) finalized count numbers of votes and almost announced that motion was failed (almost 100%) but he got an interruption from Parlimentarian. The Law Chair didn't say why parlimentarian told him to re-vote to the members. Parlimentarian knew that motion was failed. Question: parlimentarian has his own right to interrupt Law chairman's announcement of "failed" (almost full 100%)and tell him to re-vote. Law Chairman took his advice. What is your opinion? I thought that parlimentarian shouldn't bring "re-vote" up that he understood that motion clearly and nothing to say what is point of order of that motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 3, 2010 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 at 07:51 PM What is your opinion? I thought that parlimentarian shouldn't bring "re-vote" up that he understood that motion clearly and nothing to say what is point of order of that motion.I see no reason, from the facts provided, that the motion should have been voted on again.Did the "re-vote" change the outcome of the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.