Setting the Record Straight
When things are rushed. There is a CRISIS and we must act now Now NOW.
Events may become confused and out of order.
It is fitting that we take some time to reflect and
Set the Record Straight.
During the September meeting of the Central Committee there were several incidents that could benefit from reflection.
At the start of the meeting Bill Barrow attempted to make a presentation to the Body and was ruled Out of Order by the Chair.
Before we go into details I must confess that when the decision of the Chair was challenged I was in error.
It does not take a 2/3rds to reject the decision of the Chair but a simple majority.
This means the record in the Minutes is incorrect the decision of the Chair was in fact not sustained but rejected and Mr Barrow was illegally and improperly prevented from making his presentation,
There was a discussion of the Parliamentary details among the 3 Parliamentarians mentioned in the meeting and a few others my analysis is as follows taken from that dialogue.
I regret that I was unable make the position I took clearer at the full meeting
Might be because I was not at my best health wise at the time.
To recount the events.,
Mr Burrows came to me concerned that the Org Committee had made
no progress to fulfill the Orders given to it by the Full Body to present a
charter for adoption,.
The scheduled meeting had bee canceled, the reason I was give
was that the Chair would be absent.
Mr Burrows asked me if a meeting could be called at the request of two members
Looking in RRoR I found
It is the duty of the chairman to call the committee together, but, if he is absent, or neglects or declines to call a meeting of the committee? it is the duty of the committee to meet on the call of any two of its members.
This in the field of Symbolic Logic is known as an OR Statement the conclusion
"meet on the call of any two members" is True if ANY of the conditional statements
are true.
I found that canceling for being absent met the conditions.
Earlier in this discussion I mentioned another clause which states
A meeting of a special committee may be called at any time by the chairman or by any two of its members, every member being notified.
Mr Chung asked whether the Org Committee was a Special or Standing Committee
I confess the status IS in limbo until A Charter for it is adopted defining it
SO
I will fall upon a statement Made here by Mr Peletier
(Please allow me to state here there is NOTHING which denies ANY sub-group of our Committee from meeting at anytime, just not as an "official" committee of the body.)
I find myself in total agreement and will here after refer to this as the Peletier Principle
So we have two parliamentarians in agreement that there was nothing improper
or illegal about a portion of the Org Commitee meeting on their own to try to
Fulfill the Orders of the Full Body
As for this statement
At this meeting they approved a charter change and wished to see it approved at the Central Committee meeting
Incomplete they first attempted to present it to the Org Commitee, and were rejected
whereupon the Org Committee by Majority Vote Tabled Action on the Charter.
I will revisit that later point later.
Mr Burrows then came to me and asked if there were a procedure
to present a proposed Charter to the Full Body for consideration
I informed him there was. It is called a Minority Report
"If the minority submit a report, (or more properly, their "views,") it may commence thus: "The undersigned, a minority of the committee appointed, etc., not agreeing with the majority, desire to express their views in the case." After the committee's report has been read and the motion to adopt has been made and the question stated, it is usual to allow the minority to present their views, but if any one objects to its reception the chair should put the question to vote on its being received. It requires a majority vote to receive it, the question being undebatable. "
Now there may be as has been pointed out in this discussion different interpretations
of Robert's Rules of Order, but I do believe that there can be only ONE interpretation of the phrase
the question being undebatable
I find that in keeping with the Pelletier Princlple Mr Burrows and the other 9 members of the Org
Commitee did nothing Illegal or Improper.
I find that the Chair Illegally and Improperly blocked a vote by the Full Body as to the question
of whether or not to hear Mr Burrows Minority Report
I Note that the Chair's decision was upheld by the Body and I find Myself at Fault for not clarifing
this for tham, For that lapse in my Duties I have regret
I find as well that the Org Commitee by Tabling Action on the Charter did so In Violation of their
Instructions from the Full Body
Constitutiing Failure to Perform their Duty as defined in
Article III of the By=Laws
who fails to promptly carry out his or her assigned
duties within the time specified under the organization's program which the Committee has
adopted may
The Org Commitee was given Two months to return a Charter
if they had come back with a reason they were UNABLE it would be
accpetable
Choosing the do something else instead? NOT Acceptable
It is due to the Leniency of the Full Body the were given addtional
time.
Dan Kauffman
There are two other items that need clarified.
The Chair in announcing that Mr Barrow was Out of Order stated that was the result of the two parlaimentarians she was able to contact,
But One Parliamentarian stated in a discourse on the subject
(Please allow me to state here there is NOTHING which denies ANY sub-group of our Committee from meeting at anytime, just not as an "official" committee of the body.)
While the other during the email thread stated
That he had looked at it briefly but need to do some research,
Now others may disagree but neither sound to me like a categorical statement that any gathering was an illegal and improper meeting.
The second oddity was the Chairs statement that they were unalbe to contact me.
Odd when you consider that I am listed as one of their Facebook friends and if they did not remember that they could have gone to the LCRCC Facebook Group page, pulled up my profile and sent a message there.
But it is true that not everyone is up to speed on 21st Century Social Media so maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
But what really puzzles me is that since I am the ONLY Dan Kauffman in the Cedar Rapids Phone Book and since phone books are NINETEENTH Century technology,
Should have been able to contact me that way,
If they were in fact being forth coming whent they stated they had no way to contact me,.
What do you think?
