Keith, who was right? Mark or Haines? I have heard credible people say both.
I think this was a result of back-door polotics and it seemed to be set up ahead of time. A GB member confirmed that back door conversations have been going on since the dissatisfaction at the grass roots is obvious.
Allen, I teach Parliamentary Law so I get such questions from my students. Here is how I would (and will) answer this question in class:
1. Mark was right since "a question" was before us not a direct election. Thus a call for a division of the house was proper according to PL.
2. However, Earle Wilson was actually right since when his ruling was appealed to the “supreme court” (the whole body) his ruling was upheld and became the proper ruling. ---------- The bottom line for much of Parliamentary Law is the chair can do whatever 51% of the body will uphold—there is no arbiter above “the body” to decide right and wrong—the body is the supreme court.
I voted to uphold the ruling, because the Wesleyan "division of the house" dividing clergy and lay voters is not referenced in Roberts Rules or any guides of PL. It is an internal rule without precedent elsewhere. So we look carefully to the wording of our own rule and attempt to interpret it fairly. The question was whether to vote on a person (incumbent GS) by such a clergy/lay division. Haines read the rule out loud, and stated that a Wesleyan division of the house can be called for on a resolution, but not on an election of a person. The body sustained him (and Wilson) because they were right.
Lee Haines is usually right on these things... and he was right when asked his opinion before making the motion then Haines switched positions on the floor according to Mark Gorvette who asked him beforehand. It was Haines view that a motion to elect is a motion--which was the correct position according to parliamentary law.
5 comments:
That's my Childs Hall (SWU) roomate! I'm proud of you bro!
Keith,
who was right?
Mark or Haines? I have heard credible people say both.
I think this was a result of back-door polotics and it seemed to be set up ahead of time. A GB member confirmed that back door conversations have been going on since the dissatisfaction at the grass roots is obvious.
Allen,
I teach Parliamentary Law so I get such questions from my students. Here is how I would (and will) answer this question in class:
1. Mark was right since "a question" was before us not a direct election. Thus a call for a division of the house was proper according to PL.
2. However, Earle Wilson was actually right since when his ruling was appealed to the “supreme court” (the whole body) his ruling was upheld and became the proper ruling.
----------
The bottom line for much of Parliamentary Law is the chair can do whatever 51% of the body will uphold—there is no arbiter above “the body” to decide right and wrong—the body is the supreme court.
I voted to uphold the ruling, because the Wesleyan "division of the house" dividing clergy and lay voters is not referenced in Roberts Rules or any guides of PL. It is an internal rule without precedent elsewhere. So we look carefully to the wording of our own rule and attempt to interpret it fairly. The question was whether to vote on a person (incumbent GS) by such a clergy/lay division. Haines read the rule out loud, and stated that a Wesleyan division of the house can be called for on a resolution, but not on an election of a person. The body sustained him (and Wilson) because they were right.
Lee Haines is usually right on these things... and he was right when asked his opinion before making the motion then Haines switched positions on the floor according to Mark Gorvette who asked him beforehand. It was Haines view that a motion to elect is a motion--which was the correct position according to parliamentary law.
Post a Comment