Re: Motion P1788/M0047:Motion45Amendment-1
John,
That's a point well taken. It should have been called a
"motion to amend." Also, my name should probably not be listed
as the mover on the web page, since the acting chair does not
make motions, according to Roberts Rules. That said, I think
there are no practical implications in this case. We are following
our P&P.
Best regards,
Baker
On 08/15/2013 11:49 AM, John Pryce wrote:
I also vote NO on Motion P1788/M0047:Motion45Amendment-1.
To be fair about the point that an amendment should not simply reverse the original motion: this was "auto-generated" by our procedures; it is a separate motion (one can't have an amendment put after voting on the main motion is finished); calling it "amendment" in the title was probably a mistake.
Otherwise, I agree with Ian McIntosh's reasons.
John Pryce
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------