DRAFT OF THE DISSENTING OPINION I INTEND TO PRESENT ON THE CONVENTION USA FLOOR TONIGHT. IF YOU WISH TO SIGN THIS DISSENT, COMMENT BELOW.
Dissent of the Published Rules.
I
have three grounds for objecting to the report of the rules committee,
the third of which is a serious flaw that motivates my recommending that
the published rules be voted against. The first is procedural and would
have remained in the committee records, except for the serious flaw.
The second is substantive and would have been reserved for referring to
the rules committee after the report of the rules committee was set for
a vote, except for the serious flaw. The third is a serious flaw in the
rules themselves.
PROCEDURE
The
rules committee voted on a draft version of the rules, and established a
procedure for proposing amendments and adopting them. Proposals were
submitted, received enough support that they should have been adopted,
but were amended without the prior consent of the original author,
without any vote, and without instruction from the committee chairman.
This was appealed to the chairman of the committee, who did not respond
to the appeal.
In particular this would have addressed the serious flaw listed below.
RULES INCOMPLETE
No
process was available to bring before the rules committee anything
other than a change to the rules as written. In particular, a proposal
first submitted to the members of the Rules Committee on September 18th
would have had the rules committee consider the portion of Section 9 of
Robert’s Rules of Order dedicated to dealing with the concerns of
electronic meetings. The rules are lacking due to omitting clarification
on one or more of the concerns listed on page 99 of the 11th edition.
*
the type of computer equipment or computer software required for
participation in meetings, whether the organization must provide such
equipment or software, and contingencies for technical difficulties or
malfunctions;
* methods for determining the presence of a quorum;
*
the conditions under which a member may raise a point of order doubting
the presence of a quorum, and the conditions under which the continued
presence of a quorum is presumed if no such point of order is raised;
* methods for seeking recognition and obtaining the floor;
* means by which motions may be submitted in writing during a meeting; and
* methods for taking and verifying votes.
I stipulate that without considering these concerns, an electronic meeting can not claim to be following RRO.
CRITICAL FLAW
To
amend these rules it is required that 26 states vote for the amendment.
Based on a 20% voter participation rate, we would be lucky to have
delegates from 29 states vote on any motion. Further, states may be
split.
A
60-15 vote among delegates with 25 states for, 1 state against and
three states split would be far more support than any yes-no vote taken
for this convention so far, yet could not amend the rules as written.
It is for this reason that I recommend rejecting the rules as published.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you are a member of the Convention USA Rules Committee and are unable to post, e-mail Delegate Ben Prather at benjamin.prather@gmail.com to reissue an invite.