6/09/2008

Reelected other gos...

Relected DUNN @ 94%
Relected Stephenson @95%
Relected KIND @ 89%
Relected HCWilson @ 95%

elections done...

Delegates went to dinner--then went to dinner & evening service...

more memorials tomorrow morning at 8.30

7 comments:

brookssayer said...

This has been a great read today. Thank you!

mommabear said...

great coverage, thanks coach

Burton Webb said...

Thanks for the minute by minute coverage. This has been a interesting day in the Wesleyan Church. Historic day really. Well done on the Lyon election! It is a real step forward for the church. I will be watching tomorrow too.

Dave Ward said...

Historic is right. I told Holly today, "I will be teaching this date for the rest of my life. Today...June 9, 2008 will have to be memorized..." It is definitely historic.

Reading this line by line account makes me feel as though I am curled next to a big box radio listening to a baseball game. Somehow NOT seeing it, and just hearing about it second hand makes the excitement even higher.

So was the motion to divide the house really out of order?

Keith Drury said...

Thanks all...

in answer to your question dave... "It doesn't matter" -- once it was appealed it got sustained by the highest appeales court--the voting body... so whatever they sustain is "right."

(as you know, I teach Parliamentary Law and it gives me one more hunky dory story to tell right up there among "recieving" the Wesleyan-Free methodist merger report in 1972... ;-)

kerry said...

Mark, the maker of the motion to divide the house, was appealing to Roberts Rules and British legal precedent that makes such a call undebateable and virtually automatic. BUT, in Roberts Rules, division of the house simply means counting all of the votes by ballot or show of hands after an initial voice vote is deemed ambiguous by some.
The WESLEYAN division of the house is totally different, dividing lay and clergy voters, which is UNKNOWN in Roberts Rules or any secular precedents. According to Haines, it can be called for on resolutions but not on votes on people. And the conference sustained that interpretation.

Keith Drury said...

The ruling was sustained and that makes it a "right ruling"--a chair can do anything they want to so long as they have a majority to sustain it... there is no right and wrong ruling in parliamentary law so long as the body sustains the ruling... right is what the majority sustains.

The "division of the house" provision of Wesleyan Methodists was a way to keep ministers from ramrodding things though a conference... it is used so rarely that it is really only an antique thing to remember some of the days when the laity had power and feared centralized ministerial power..those days are long gone.

(apparently lee haines gave two answers to this question--or did not hear right, since Gorvette sought his advice before making the motion and believes Haines switched positions when it got to the floor)