It appearing that a Quorum of 36 states is participating, and the date and time noticed for the convening of DAY TWO of Convention USA having arrived, the convention will come to order.
The session will be conducted by means of posting comments on this blog. Delegates wishing to be recognized should post a comment specifying the reason they wish the floor. No motion will be published unless otherwise in order and accompanied by a second from another State.
The agenda will consist of:
1) Report on the Election of Permanent Chairman.
2) Report re: Appointment of Credentials Committee
2) Interim Report of the Rules Committee
3) Such other matters as may properly be brought to the floor.
182 comments:
REPORT OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE.
Thomas E. Brennan of Florida:
Through the use of the Integrity program operated by Aristotle, Inc., and government web sites where available, we have verified the voter registration of 277 delegates to Convention USA, representing 47 states. Only the states of Wyoming, Kansas and Minnesota remain unrepresented.
There are 69 additional persons who have registered as delegates, but whose voter registration we have thus far been unable to verify.
The process of verifying voter registration is a time consuming clerical task. It is recommended that the permanent Chairman of the convention solicit volunteers to serve on the credentials committee.
BY THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:
If there is no objection, the report of the Credentials Committee will be received and included in the minutes.
Deleage Veda from Massachusetts is recognized.
Delegate Boese of Wisconsin was appointed Chair of the credentials commmittee. He resigned. I was the only active member of the committee.
McCormick of Tennessee is recognized
Delegate Freedman of New York is recognized.
I move to adopt the rules as published on the Convention USA website.
Is there support for Delegate Freedman's motion?
I second
I second the motion made by the gentleman from New York.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SUPPORTED THAT THE RULES AS PUBLISHED ON THE WEB SITE BE APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
MCORMICK OF TENNESSEE IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON TH FL0OR.
HE WILL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO POST HIS COMMENT.
Wisconsin delegate requests to be recognized.
DELEGATE HAWKS OF DELAWARE IS RECOGNIZED.
Thank you Mr. Chairman
This will be split up because the blog only allows 4,096 characters.
CONVENTION USA is a Florida non profit corporation, founded by former Michigan Chief Justice Thomas E. Brennan. Our purpose is to conduct a national convention on the Internet as near as possible in the manner contemplated by Article V of the United States Constitution.
CONVENTION USA, INC. AN ACTIVE FLORIDA NON PROFIT CORPORATION, WILL OPERATE A VIRTUAL ARTICLE V AMENDATORY CONVENTION ON THE INTERNET; PROVIDE A WEB SITE FOR DELEGATES TO REGISTER AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Whenever possible, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of the convention. A quorum shall consist of one or more delegates from each of thirty-four states.
WHENEVER POSSIBLE, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER SHALL GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF THE CONVENTION. A QUORUM SHALL CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE CAUCUS CAPTAIN DELEGATES OR PRE-APPROVED ALTERNATES FROM EACH OF AT LEAST THIRTY-FOUR STATES.
Members of the corporation are known as Delegates. Any registered voter in one of the United States of America may become a Delegate from his or her State upon registration and taking the oath of office.
Proposed amendments are in caps.
DELEGATE HAWKS WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO POST A COMMENT.
A Delegate may resign at any time.
A Delegate may be removed for egregious misconduct found by a two thirds majority of the entire convention. A delegate may also be removed for failure to answer the call for a quorum three consecutive times.
A DELEGATE AND/OR ELECTED OFFICER MAY BE REMOVED FOR EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT OR BREACH OF THE OATH OF OFFICE FOUND BY A TWO THIRDS QUORUM MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE CONVENTION. A DELEGATE MAY ALSO BE REMOVED FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE CALL FOR A QUORUM THREE CONSECUTIVE TIMES.
Registration shall require the following information: State, County, first and last name, street address, zip code, telephone number, email address, gender, date of birth, and a password, which shall consist of between 8 and 50 numbers and/or letters. An optional personal statement may be included with registration.
CONVENTION USA will be called to order upon the registration of one or more Delegates from thirty-four States.
THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. SHOULD BE DELETED. NO LONGER A CONVENTION RULE.
There shall be no limit on the number of Delegates from any State. Every Delegate shall have the privilege of participation in the work of the convention, as defined by these rules.
The delegates of each State shall be organized as a State caucus.
The first delegate in a State shall be the chairman of the State caucus, and shall serve at the pleasure of the caucus.
THE FIRST DELEGATE IN A STATE SHALL BE THE STATE CAUCUS CAPTAINS, AND SHALL SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CAUCUS. CAPTAIN SHALL REPRESENT AND SPEAK FOR THAT STATE AT CONVENTION ASSEMBLIES UNLESS TIME IS GIVEN TO ANOTHER DELEGATE BY THAT CAPTAIN.
Until the convention is called to order, Delegates will serve as a Committee of Organization.
THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. SHOULD BE DELETED. NO LONGER A CONVENTION RULE.
The Founder shall serve as Temporary Chairman of the convention and he may appoint such temporary officers and committees as he deems necessary.
THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. SHOULD BE DELETED. NO LONGER A CONVENTION RULE.
FROM HERE
Upon being called to order by the Temporary Chairman, the convention will adopt rules for its governance and operation, and will elect the following officers:
A CHAIRMAN, who shall preside over the work of the convention and who shall serve at the pleasure of the States.
A CHAIRMAN PRO TEM, who shall preside in the absence of the chairman.
A SECRETARY, who shall maintain records of the work of the convention.
A TREASURER, who shall take possession of the funds of the convention, pay its expenses, and maintain accurate financial records for the convention.
A PARLIAMENTARIAN, who shall advise the CHAIRMAN respecting procedural matters.
The following COMMITTEES will be appointed by the CHAIRMAN:
INTERNET COMMITTEE which shall be responsible for the reliable functioning of the convention’s website.
STYLE AND DRAFTING which shall be responsible to review all proposed amendments to the Constitution and cast them in appropriate constitutional language.
ORGANIZATION which shall be responsible for reviewing the convention procedures, maintaining and publishing the rules of the convention and making recommendations for amendments to the rules when advisable.
TO HERE
THESE ARE NOT RULES RATHER THEY ARE GOALS TO ACCOMPLISH AFTER A PERMANENT CHAIRMAN IS ELECTED.
PERMANENT CHAIRMAN OF THE CONVENTION SHALL SOLICIT AND OVERSEE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE AS MEMBERS ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE.
All business of the convention, except the adoption of proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States, shall be determined by a majority of the States, and a majority of the Delegates voting on the question.
ALL BUSINESS OF THE CONVENTION, EXCEPT THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY OF THE CONVENTION, AND A MAJORITY OF THE DELEGATES VOTING ON ANY MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED AND PRESENTED FOR A VOTE.
No proposal for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be considered unless supported by three states nor approved by the convention unless the same shall have received:
The affirmative votes of three fourths of the States,
The affirmative votes of a majority of the registered Delegates,
Delegates are expected to conduct themselves with dignity, and show respectful consideration of fellow delegates. Ad hominum arguments and offensive personal references are discouraged.
AMENDMENT TO THESE RULES MAY BE PROPOSED SECONDED AND TREATED AS BUSINESS OF THE CONVENTION.
Proposed amendments are in caps.
THE DELEGATE FROM TENNESSEE HAS POSTED A NUMBER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES AS PUBLISHED ON THE WEB SITE.
ASSUMING HE INTENDS TO MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, IS THERE SUPPORT FOR HIS AMENDMENTS?
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO AMEND THE RULES AS ADVOCATED BY McCORMICK OF TENNESSEE.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION?
DELEGATE SPERRY OF CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THE DISCUSSION IS ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES PROPOSED BY DELEGATE MCCORMICK OF TENNESSEE.
DO THE DELEGATES FROM WISCONSIN AND DELAWARE WISH TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
A NUMBER OF DELEGATES HAVE ASKED TO BE HEARD REGARDING THE RULES.
WILL ALL DELEGATES WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THIS MOTION KINDLY POST THEIR STATEMENTS.
THE CHAIR WILL PUBLISH ALL SUCH COMMENTS AS ARE POSTED IN THE NEXT TEN MINUTES.
A MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE TAKES PRECEDENCE. IS THERE SUPPORT FOR THE MOTION TO REFER?
Yes, I second the motion to refer.
I second the motion to refer to COMMITTEE.
Delegate Fischer
IN004
I make a motion we refer to committee.
Thomas Jackson KY005 I also second the motion to refer to committee
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO REFER THE RULES TO COMMITTEE.
DELEGATES WISHING TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE MAY POST THEIR WISH NOW OR COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHAIR BY EMAIL.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO REFFERAL, IT WILL BE SO ORDERED.
Second motion to refer ... Wisconsin Delegate 004 (Lehman)
THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO ADOPT RULES AND THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE RULES HAVING AGREED TO REFFERAL TO COMMITTEE, THE MOTIONS ARE SO REFERRED.
THE CHAIR WILL NOW ACCEPT NOMINATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF PERMANENT CHAIRMAN OF THE CONVENTION.
I npminate Daniel Krynicki , deligate from Michigin
I nominate Judge Brennan for permanent chairman of the convention.
Wisconsin Delegate Lehman #004
I nominate Judge Brennan to remain as the permanent chair, if he will accept.
I nominate Judge Brennan
I nominate Keith Broders a Delegate of California
I nominate Howard Mccormick from Tennessee as chairman.
I ask for standing to speak to the credentials of Daniel Krynicki.
I second Judge Brennan's nomination as Permanent Chairman.
Delegate Hawks
Delaware 003
I nominate Dean E Malone a delegate of KY
I nominate DOUG McCormick from TN as Chairman.
DELEGATES KRYNICKI OF MICHIGAN, MCCORMICK OF TENNESSEE, BROADERS OF CALIFORNIA, AND BRENNAN OF FLORIDA HAVE BEEN NOMINATED FOR PERMANENT CHAIRMAN.
ARE THESE NOMINATIONS SECONDED?
I so second the nominations
I second the nominations.
Mr. Chairman, I second.
Is a second necessary for Brennan? He's been nominated multiple times. If so, and if nobody else will step up, I'll second Brennan if i may.
I second the nomination of Judge Brennan.
Delegate Donald Boxley of Alabama seonds the Nominations of McCormick and Broaders.
Delegate of Alabama Donald Boxley also seconds the nominations of Judge Brennan and Kryniki.
I second the nomination of Doug McCormick of TN
THERE ARE NOW FIVE CANDIDATES FOR PERMANENT CHAIRMAN, DELEGATE MALONE OF TENNESSEE HAVING ALSO BEEN NOMINATED.
THE ELECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED ON THE CONVENTION WEB SITE AT WWW.CONVENTIONUSA.ORG
DELEGATES WISHING TO VOTE WILL LOG IN AND OPEN THE PAGE ENTITLED "FLOOR MOTIONS."
THERE WILL BE SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR EACH OF THE CANDIDATES. ONLY THE "YES" VOTES FOR EACH CANDIDATE WILL BE COUNTED.
THE CONVENTION WILL STAND IN RECESS DURING THE VOTING WHICH WILL BE CLOSED ONE WEEK FROM TODAY AT 9:00 PM EASTERN TIME, AT WHICH TIME THE CONVENTION WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER.
A MOTION TO ADJOURN IS NOT IN ORDER, THE CHAIR HAVING DECLARED RECESS UNTIL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2012 AT 9:00 PM.
Mr. Chairman
Delegate McCormick TN004 wishes to be recognized.
The appointed hour for reconvening Convention USA having arrived, voting for permanent Chairman is closed and the convention will come to order.
It appears from the Convention website that the votes for Permanent Chairman were as follows:
Brennan 44 Delegates 18 States
Broaders 6 Delegates 1 State
Krynicki 9 Delegates 4 States
Malone 6 Delegates 3 States
McCormick 20 Delegates 8 States
It appearing that Brennan has a majority both of Delegate votes and States, he is declared the Permanent Chairman of the Convention.
For what purpose does the Delegate wish the floor?
Mr. Chairman,
I thought we had to do that to be able to have the floor later if desired.
Delegates wishing to be recognized should state the reason they want the floor.
The Chair wishes to express his appreciation for all those who voted in the Chairmanship election. I am honored by the confidence you have shown me and I am pleased that other Delegates have demonstrated the willingness to accept positions of leadership in the Convention.
I offer the following report respecting the Credentials Committee: Delegates Elesner of Ne Hampshire and Aveni of Missouri having volunteered to serve, they were appointed to the Credentials Committee, with Delegate Elesner as Chairman.
They have been provided data regarding the verification of Delegates and they have been given passwords to use the Integrity system for verification o new delegates.
Mr. Chairman,
I wish to congratulate Judge Brennan on become our first permanent Chairman at ConventionUSA.
I am honored to have come in second and wish to thank everyone for their support.
IF DELEGATE PRATHER WILL POST THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE, THE CHAIR WILL CONFIRM THEIR APPOINTMENT AS THE RULES COMMITTEE.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The current members of the temporary Rules Committee are:
Committee Chairman Andy Hawks (DE)
Delegate Adam Freedman (NY)
Delegate Doug McCormick (TN) Delegate Ben Prather (FL)
Delegate Keith Lehman (WI) Delegate Malcolm Speery (CA) Delegate Joshua Arrowood (TN) Delegate Charles Fisher (GA) Delegate Thomas Jackson (KY) Delegate Gena Aveni (MO)
Delegate Bill Walker (WA)
Ex Officio: Convention Chairman Thomas Brennan (FL)
I present these names for appointment to the Rules Committee.
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR, ALL DELEGATES WHO VOTED 'YES' IN THE DAY TWO QUORUM CALL ARE PRESUMED TO BE STILL PARTICIPATING IN THAT SESSION WHICH WAS NOT ADJOURNED BIUT MERELY RECESSED UNTIL TONIGHT.
THE CHAIR IS PLEASED TO APPOINT THE FOLLOWING DELEGATES TO THE RULES COMMITTEE: CHAIRMAN, ANDY HAWKS (DE), MEMBERS: ADAM FREEDMAN (NY), DOUG MCCORMICK (TN), BEN PRATHER, (FL), KEITH LEHMAN (WI), MALCOLM SPERRY (CA), JOSHUA ARROWOOD (TN), CHARLES FISCHER (GA), THOMAS JACKSON (KY), GENA AVENI (MO), BILL WALKER (WA)
I can report that the credentials committee has made headway on the candidate list. The main problem at this point is that a number of appplicants have not provided all the information requested. I suggest we make age, birth date, address, etc. required fields in the sign up form in the future. Delegate Aveni and I hope to have the bulk of pending delegates confirmed by this coming Friday.
I hope this update is not out of order.
THE RECORD WILL BE CORRECTED TO SHOW THAT DELEGATE FISCHER IS FROM INDIANA AND NOT GEORGIA.
THE RECORD WILL ALSO SHOW THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONVENTION IS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE RULES COMMITTEE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE COMMENT OF DELEGATE ELSENER WILL BE RECEIVED AS THE REPORT OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE AND ENTERED ON THE RECORD.
Congrats Honourable Chairman,TX Delegate 04 Ginger Schaefer here to ask how the rules committee appeared and appointed in two posts? And will you please tell me who is Texas Caucus leader? Thanks
Mr Chairman
I would make a motion that all fields asked for at Delegate Registration be required.
Mr Chairman
I would ask the credentials committee also report to the removal of Delegates. "A Delegate may also be removed for failure to answer the call for a quorum three consecutive times."
THE DELEGATE FROM TEXAS IS INFORMED THAT TEXAS HAS NO CAPTAIN, THE SENIOR DELEGATE HAVING RESIGNED. THE TEXAS CAUCUS IS ASKED TO ELECT A CAPTAIN, AND INFORM THE CHAIR.
THE CHAIR IS OF THE OPINION THAT ALL FIELDS IN THE REGISTRATION FORM ARE MANDATORY EXCEPT THE FIELD DESIGNATED "ABOUT ME."
THE COUNTY AND DATE OF BIRTH FIELDS WERE ADDED AFTER SEVERAL YEARS, AND THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FROM EARLY REGISTRATIONS.
ALL DELEGATES WERE REQUESTED TO UPDATE THEIR PROFILES WITH DATE OF BIRTH AND COUNTY INFORMATION, BUT MANY FAILED TO DO SO..
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CONVENTION AT THIS TIME, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO A DAY CERTAIN.
Mr. Chairman
I would request instead of adjourning we go in recess until the rules committee has completed their report on the rules of the convention since that is still unfinished business from the day 2 agenda
Point of inquiry: Should we consider nominations of the remaining convention officers mentioned in the published rules?
Delegate Prather (FL012)
Mr Chairman
I second the recess until the rules committee has completed their report.
THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT WE RECESS PENDING THE REPORT OF THE RULES COMMITTEE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THE CONVENTION WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AT 9:00 PM EASTERN TIME.
Responding to the inquiry of Delegate Prather, the remaining officers will be considered after rules are adopted creating the offices.
Responding to the inquiry of Delegate Fields, the Chair has used Eastern Time as the base for all notification.
The comparable times are:
Eastern Tine 9:00 PM
Central Time 8:00 PM
Mountain Time 7:00 PM
Pacific Time 6:00 PM
Alaskan Time 4:00 PM
Hawaiian Time 3:00 PM
We have tried to establish a time frame which is most convenient for everyone. Comments are solicited.
It is 9:00 PM Eastern Time, Sunday September 30, 2012.
The convention will come to order.
There is one item on the DAY TWO agenda remaining to be addressed, and that is the approval of Rules for the Convention.
When we have completed that business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn to a day certain, to be known as DAY THREE.
At the present, the obvious matters to be considered on DAY THREE are the filling of such offices as may be created by our rules, and the appointment of committees described in the rules.
Delegates who wish to be considered for the various offices and committees are invited to inform the Chair of their interest and availability.
This can be done either by emailing me at convusa@aol.com or simply posting a comment on this blog.
Those comments will not be published unless requested by the poster.
Delegates are reminded that Roberts Rules of Order require a second for every motion before it can be considered.
The Chair will not publish any motion that is not seconded. Therefore, if you wish to make a motion that will be considered by the convention, you must arrange for a second to be posted, along with your motion.
Mr. Chairman: I wish to have the floor to present the report of the Rules Committee.
The Chair will recognize the Chairman of the Rules Committee for the purpose of making a report.
Delegate Prather:
Point of Inquiry:
If the rules are brought to a vote, will there be another meeting of Day 2 to officially report the results of the vote?
In response to the Point of Inquiry:
If there is a vote on a Floor motion, it will be displayed on the Conventionusa.org web site and the votes will be shown as usual.
The Chair will announce the time for votes to be cast and the closing of the polls. The convention will stand in recess during the vote.
REPORT OF THE RULES COMMITTEE
The Rules Committee met by teleconference on September 27, 2012 to consider the Rules as published on the Convention USA website. The first five Articles were approved by consensus and without controversy.
Article VI concerned the voting thresholds to be used at the Convention, and it was approved by a contested vote with two dissenting members. A dissenting report by Delegate Prather can be found at http://conventionusarulescommittee.blogspot.com.
The Committee then decided to allow two more days of asynchronous meeting at the Rules Committee blog, also on the Convention USA website, during which time Committee member were invited to propose additional changes to Article VI. This resulted in five motions being offered by Delegate Prather and one motion by myself.
Before the final voting on these motions, Chairman Brennan proactively revised his Published Rule to address most, but not all, of the major concerns of Delegate Prather and myself. As revised, the Committee ratified Chairman Brennan’s changes, and the Rules that are currently published on the Convention USA website were approved by the Committee. Vote tallies will be made available in the Committee minutes.
The Chair recognized the Chairman of the Rules Committee at six minutes past the hour.Does the Chairman need more time?
Does the Chairman wish to make a motion?
Yes. I move that the Convention adopt the Rules as currently published on the Convention USA website.
Delegate from Michigan wishes to be recognized for the purpose of placing a second on the Rules Committee Chairman's motion to adopt the Rules of the Convention as previously published by the Rules Committee.
A motion has been made and seconded to approve the rules as published on the web site.
The chair will entertain discussion on the motion.
Delegates will kindly identify their comments as opposition or support for the motion.
Debate will continue for one hour or until no comments have been posted for 15 minutes, or a motion to call the question has been made and adopted.
Delegate Prather, FL012
The report of the Rules Committee suggested that my Dissent was to the vote, My dissent is to the published rules.
Dissent of the Published Rules.
I have three grounds for objecting to the report of the rules committee, the third of which is a critical flaw in the published rules. The first is procedural and would have remained in the committee records, except for the critical flaw. The second is substantive and would have been presented after the report of the rules committee was set for a vote, except for the critical flaw. The third is a critical 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 instead amended without the prior consent of the original author, without any vote, and without instruction from the committee chairman. This action was appealed to the chairman of the committee. The Chairman ruled that while the proposed rules may have been updated prematurely, and support of the published rules should be counted as votes against any proposed amendments.
“At 9/28 - 9:05pm, Chairman Brennan also added the changes requested by Delegate Prather in his Motion 4, except that the two-thirds state voting threshold for changing the Rules was not included. At 9/28 - 7:16 pm, however, Delegate Prather indicated that his principal concern was lowering the voting threshold for changing the Rules to a simple majority of voting delegates, not an absolute majority of all registered delegates. Since this change is now in the new Published Rules, and based on his further comments at 9/29 - 5:50 pm, I understand Delegate Prather to concur in this change to his Motion 4, and I will treat any vote in favor of the Published Rules to be a vote in favor of Prather Motion 4 (as modified) and as a vote against any remaining portion of the Prather 4 to have a 2/3rds requirement.”
The critical flaw was specifically mentioned in the very 9/29 - 5:50 pm post the Chair references, where “I did not approve the amendments that were adopted, and they did not satisfy ALL of my concerns.” I request that you read the official Rules Committee Blog for yourself, available at the ConventionUSA.org home page at the start of this meeting.
RULES INCOMPLETE
A proposal first submitted to the members of the Rules Committee on September 18th would have considered Section 9 of Robert’s Rules of Order dedicated to dealing with the concerns of electronic meetings (page 99 of the 11th edition). I stipulate that without considering these concerns, an electronic meeting can not claim to be following RRO.
* 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.
CRITICAL FLAW
The published rules required that an affirmative vote of 26 states is required for any amendments to them. 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.
Mr. Chairman,
Need a clarification please.
This is to approve that the Proposed Rules on the website be placed as a Floor Motion to be voted on, correct?
The question is on the rules published at www.conventionusa.org/rules.php
Delegate Prather, FL012
Dissent of the Published Rules.
I have three grounds for objecting to the report of the rules committee, the third of which is a critical flaw in the published rules. The first is procedural and would have remained in the committee records, except for the critical flaw. The second is substantive and would have been presented after the report of the rules committee was set for a vote, except for the critical flaw. The third is a critical 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 instead amended without the prior consent of the original author, without any vote, and without instruction from the committee chairman. This action was appealed to the chairman of the committee. The Chairman ruled that while the proposed rules may have been updated prematurely, and support of the published rules should be counted as votes against any proposed amendments.
“At 9/28 - 9:05pm, Chairman Brennan also added the changes requested by Delegate Prather in his Motion 4, except that the two-thirds state voting threshold for changing the Rules was not included. At 9/28 - 7:16 pm, however, Delegate Prather indicated that his principal concern was lowering the voting threshold for changing the Rules to a simple majority of voting delegates, not an absolute majority of all registered delegates. Since this change is now in the new Published Rules, and based on his further comments at 9/29 - 5:50 pm, I understand Delegate Prather to concur in this change to his Motion 4, and I will treat any vote in favor of the Published Rules to be a vote in favor of Prather Motion 4 (as modified) and as a vote against any remaining portion of the Prather 4 to have a 2/3rds requirement.”
The critical flaw was specifically mentioned in the very 9/29 - 5:50 pm post the Chair references, where “I did not approve the amendments that were adopted, and they did not satisfy ALL of my concerns.” I request that you read the official Rules Committee Blog for yourself, available at the ConventionUSA.org home page at the start of this meeting.
RULES INCOMPLETE
A proposal first submitted to the members of the Rules Committee on September 18th would have considered Section 9 of Robert’s Rules of Order dedicated to dealing with the concerns of electronic meetings (page 99 of the 11th edition). I stipulate that without considering these concerns, an electronic meeting can not claim to be following RRO.
* 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.
CRITICAL FLAW
The published rules required that an affirmative vote of 26 states is required for any amendments to them. 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.
Question of privilege: I disagree with state caucus point 2 - appointment of the first delegate to sign up. This is an office that should be voted upon by the state caucuc itself.
Delegate McCormick's question:
We are debating whether to approve the rules,not whether to vote on approving the rules.
A motion being made and seconded, we will vote on it, when debate is concluded.
Thank You Mr. Chairman
the motion opens the floor for discussion.
Delegate Prather
My apology to all for the double post above.
I had misread the Chairman's comment at 6:42 as stating that my post at 39 was interpreted as an objection to the report, not to the rules, and that it was the later that was in discussion.
Mr. Chairman I would like the floor to state my opposition to the rules proposed
I believe that there are still issues to be worked out regarding the rules concerning Section VI regarding the voting section. If nothing else the committee members are owed an explanation as to why the rules were changed before voting had closed on proposals to the rules. I agree with the rules posted. I oppose them because I do not believe they incorporate all of the proposals fully that were approved by the committee.
Delegate Fischer IN004
Member of temorary rules committee
Point of privilege: Prather's objections are sound. I find myself doubting the integrity of this process for the stated reason that you published the second a full minute AFTER I raised a point of privilege to table this motion. I want to table it because I found items I don't like. This meeting mediun is inadequate for the purpose at hand.
The motion being debated is the motion of Chairman Hawks to approve the rules as published on the web site.
All delegate comments pertinent to that motion will be published.
Extraneous comments and questions will not be published.
Would the Rules Committee Chair please explain the difference arrived at in the Rules Revision between VI.2.B, and VI.4.B please?
A motion may not be made by a Delegate making a point of information or inquiry.
If all will remember the temporary Rules Committee was appointed as a result of myself proposing amendments to the proposed rules that appeared on the website several weeks ago. That committees job was to consider those Amendments and those Amendments only. Much more was done, which is fine. However the job of that temporary committee ended as of Committee Chair Hawks report this evening.
The rules as posted now will give us a STARTING point only. The actual Rules Committee called for in these rules will be VERY busy with many changes and proposals to bring before the Convention as we move through this process.
We have NO rules committee now.
I think we NEED to get the Starting Rules approved so we can move forward.
Delegate Prather,
I motion that the rules be referred to committee until the issues with Section VI are resolved, and the considerations of Section 9 of Robert’s Rules of Order (page 99 of the 11th edition) are formally considered.
Specifically:
* 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 second Delegate Prather's Motion regarding Section VI and RRO concerns be referred to committee.
Point of inquiry: If someone puts forth a motion to adopt ans someone else invokes a motion to lay the question aside before it is seconded, how are we to have a sound debate on an item when it is put up for a vote? All that is doing is inviting everyone to move against it. How is that productive?
In response to Delegate Fields, the difference between VI.2.B and VI.4.B is that an absolute majority of all registered delegates (whether voting or not) is needed to approve a proposal for a constitutional amendment (along with concurrence of 38 States), whereas only a simple majority of voting delegates is needed to change the rules (along with an absolute majority of 26 states).
I can only speak for myself, but the difference in voting thresholds is relective of the difference in importance between proposing constitutional amendments and changing the Convention rules. The feeling on the Committee was that a higher consensus was needed for the former.
Point of Inquiry:
If the motion to refer to committee is accepted, would it be proper to then motion that Sections I-V of the published rules be approved?
This would give us some form of starting rules to allow us to proceed, as Delegate McCormick has expressed.
Out of order!
This issue has passed through Committee and been voted on already!
Mr. Chairman:
I second Delegate Prather's motion, and call the question.
Mr Chairman: Point of privilege. I am sure you are being bombarded by messages because nobody can see what anyone else is contributing. It must be difficult to sort out. There is a product businesses use for exactly this purpose called WebEx. I have submitted a provate inquiry to find out if it can be provided as a public service to our group. I will forward their response to you, unless you care to have me direct it to someone else. This is a joint responsibility of both the rules committee and the web site committee since it crosses both domains. Thank you for your very important and I'm sure difficult work in chairing this convention.
The motion is to refer the motion on the floor to committee.
If there is no objection to the motion, it will be so ordered and the Chair will dissolve the previous committee and appoint a new committee to consider the motion.
Mr. Chairman
I have made an Objection!
Mr. Chairman I would like to be on the new rules committee
I would ask that Committee Chair Hawks of the previous Rules Committee let it be known that Articles 1 thru 6 have already been approved by committee.
I appreciate Delegate Malone's concern, but his suggestion is precisely the sort or bombardment that detracts from debate on the issues.
Mr. McCormick on what grounds do you object
Mr. Chairman,
I object to sending the Rules back to committee until the Rules that the previous Rules committee are voted on by the Convention.
Mr. Chairman
I ask that Delegate McCormick state his reason for objection
I object to the motion to refer the pending motion to committee. I feel that it is important to establish voting thresholds to move the Convention forward, and Article VI.4.B was revised specifically to make it easier to amend the Rules in the future to address concerns like those of Delegate Prather.
The question is upon the motion to refer to committee. Is there discussion on this motion?
I move to call the previous question (that being the original motion of the Committee Chair regarding the published Rules).
Mr. Chairman, the motion to refer must first be resolved. Hearing no discussion, I move that discussion on the motion be closed, and the vote on the motion to refer be brought to a vote.
Delegate Prather
I object to the move to call the previous question, as the current question has not been resolved, and has higher precedence.
As you can see, there have been a great many postings which ask questions, make comments and express opinions unrelated to the question under debate.
I stated that,if there is no objection, the motion to refer would be granted.
Delegate Hawks has objected. Therefore, the matter being debated and the only matter being debated is whether or not to refer the previous motion to committee.
I ask the Delegates to keep their comments to that issue, for or against.
Mr. Chairman
I do NOT support any motion to refer the Rules that the previous Rules committee worked on long and hard to any committee until the Convention has had a chance to consider and vote on THOSE proposed rules. I ask that a roll call vote be placed on the Floor Motion page and we recess until a vote on accepting the rules as published on the website has bee completed.
Is there support for Delegate Fields motion to end debate?
The question is on the motion to refer the motion of Committee Chairman Hawks to committee.
Are you ready for the question?
There being no objection to the call for the question on the motion to refer to committee, the same will be posted on the floor motion page of the the convention web site and Delegates will be given until 9:00 PM Eastern Time on Thursday,October 4, 2012 to cast their votes.
The DAY TWO session will be recessed until Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 9:00 PM Eastern Time.
Thank You Mr. Chairman
Good night ALL!
DAY TWO of Convention USA, having been in recess until this hour, is called to order.
It appearing from the record at
https://www.conventionusa.org/publicmotions.php?do=votes&pgid=&cnt=26
that the motion to refer to committee the motion of Delegate Hawks to approve the Rules of the Convention as published on the web site at
www.conventionusa.org/rules.php
has been approved by a majority of the Delegates and a majority of the States voting on the question;
IT IS ORDERED that the committee previously appointed is dissolved and a new committee is hereby appointed consisting of the following Delegates:
Burleson of Michigan
Harris of Florida
Hunt of Florida
Kelley of Illinois, Chairman
Murphy of Nebraska
O’Doy of Massachusetts
Runyon of Arizona
Delegates wishing to be considered for appointment to this committee are invited to communicate with the Chair by posting comments on this blog.
The Convention will stand in recess until 9:00 PM Eastern Time on Sunday, October 14, 2012.
Delegate Burleson of Michigan is reporting that the Rules Committee has reviewed and is reporting out the approval for the Rules of the Convention as published.
If the convention has been called to order, I move the adoption of the proposed rules of procedure.
Dan Kelley (IL)
The convention having recessed until October 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM Eastern Time, and the hour having arrived, the convention is called to order.
There being only one item on the DAY TWO agenda remaining, the Chair recognizes Delegate Kelley of Illinois, Chairman of the reconstituted Rules Committee.
By the Chair:
Is there support for Delegate Kelley's motion?
I second, Mr. chairman
I second the motion
Adam Freedman (New York)
I second Mr Kelley's motion.
The motion having been made and seconded that the convention approve the rules as published on the web site www.conventionusa.org,is there any discussion of the motion?
Delegate Ben Prather FL012
Are we now discussing the proposed rules?
Delegate Ben Prather (FL012)
Opposed to Adopting the Rules as Published
The published rules state that “Whenever possible, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of the Convention.” RRO stipulates that whenever this is not possible, the proper action is to define the variations in the Rules.
The determination of initial rules is a critical step in the forming of an organization. It is important that the organization follow the initial rules, so the process establishing the initial rules and the initial rules themselves form a tautology.
The current process has at least two significant deviations from RRO that are intrinsic to these proceedings, yet ignored in the rules. These differences would introduce questions on the validity of the rules of Convention USA.
PRESENCE OF A QUORUM
RRO requires the presence of a quorum before returning to business after a recess, and allows delegates to question the presence of a quorum at any time the floor is open. Convention USA presumes a quorum until the business of a Day is complete, even with a recess of several days.
This presumption is made without any evidence that a quorum of members have login in at conventionUSA.org. Further, no vote has attained a quorum of voting delegates, as defined in the published rules.
Since May 21, I have been requesting as strenuously as is within my power that the considerations for electronic meetings on page 99 of RRO be considered in the initial rules. This includes “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.”
When following RRO, printed rules trump precedent. How can our vote on the initial rules be irreproachable without a proper treatment of a Quorum in the rules?
SIMULTANEOUS AURAL COMMUNICATION
RRO is built on the idea that the actions of other members (including the simple act of standing, and not being recognised) is transparent to all members. Convention USA has established the precedent that only those posts approved by the Chairman are presented to the floor.
There is no public auditing of the rejected posts. I have had a handful of posts denied publication without any feedback for the reason for being censored. I will be clear that valid reasons may have existed, and that my objection is to the lack of feedback in the process, not to the censoring of any particular post.
A separate, simultaneous, and unmoderated, blog would eliminate the possibility of censoring of ideas, and allow more sophisticated delegates to guide the ideas of novices like myself through the formal process. All posts should be responded to by the Chairman, even if this is by e-mail after the fact as to why the post was out of order.
This precedent presents a moral hazard of the Convention devolving to fiat rule by the Convention Chairman. Without such a process it is impossible to verify that the initial rules represent the consensus of our convention, and not dictated to us by our Chairman.
VOTE TO AMEND THE RULES
I note the irony of the motion to refer to committee barely achieving what I had argued was an unreasonable majority to amend the rules.
I also note the failure of the new committee to implement any changes to the rules, despite the overwhelming support of the changes that lead to the formation of the new committee.
CONCLUSION
Thus it is my recommendation that the published rules be voted against, and Convention USA adjourn until rules can be adopted that address the considerations for electronic meetings on page 99 of RRO.
This should include:
1) When a quorum can be presummed
2) How delegates are expected to handle unofficial communication during a meeting.
3) What feedback a delegate should expect when posts are not published.
4) A reconsideration of the required vote to amend the rules.
Answering Delegate Prather:
Yes, the discussion is upon the motion to approve the published rules.
Does the delegate wish o speak in support of or opposition to the motion?
A motion has been made to call the previous question and close debate.
Is there support for the motion to close debate?
Mr. President:
Let me introduce myself. I am Leonard Young, a professional registered parliamentarian and delegate from Missouri.
I believe these rules are a good place to start. There will need to be some technical amendments which I do not believe the Chair is prepared to introduce tonight, but I believe these rules are satisfactory to move the process forward.
It is an honor to be associated with all of the delegates in this on-line Convention.
mr chairman, i second the motion to call the previous question and close debate
Second to close debate.
Travis Burton (AR)
Before we close may I move that you consider me, New Hampshire delegate 04 the chairmen of the credentials committee?
A motion having been made and seconded to close debate, the Chair will post a floor motion to that effect on the convention web site.
A motion to close debate is not debatable and will require a 2/3 majority to pass.
Delegates are given 72 hours to vote on the floor motion and the convention is in recess until then.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Elsener.
Thank you Judge brennan. I make this motion to for a couple of reasons:
1. The judge has his hands full\
2. My computer expertise may be a be able to help make the effort more efficient.
3. If our goal is for a much larger participation rate of the population we will have to make our efforts to credential people faster and accurate.
I appreciate the suggestion of Delegate Elsener and suggest that he send me an email with more details at convusa@aol.com.
Thank you.
The convention is in recess until Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, pending completion of the vote to end debate.
Mr Chairman, a point of information/order/appeal:
RRO (copyright 1943),p242:'A chairman will often find himself perplexed with the difficulties attending his position, and in such cases he will do well to remember that parliamentary law was made for deliberative assemblies, and NOT THE ASSEMBLIES FOR PARLIAMENTARY LAW. This is well expressed by a distinguished English writer on parliamentary law, thus, "The great purpose of all rules and forms is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the expression o further deliberative sense."'
Due to the very nature of RRO, I cannot conceive that there would have been substantive changes to this concept, yet I do not find this concept present in the conducting of the business of this Convention.
We have before us a vote on rules that members of this Convention voted overwhelmingly to send back to committee, yet here they are again, virtually unchanged, awaiting our votes a second time. What exactly is the purpose of this circular activity, and in what manner does it serve the interests of the members of this Convention?
The time to which the convention was recessed having arrived, and the motion to end debate having been passed by more than 2/3 of the delegates and States voting on the question, the Chair declares that debate on the main motion is foreclosed, and the Convention will proceed to vote on the motion to approve the rules as published on the Convention web site.
The question will be put in a floor motion as follows:
Do you favor adoption of the Convention Rules published at www.conventionusa.org/rules.php?
The convention will be in recess during the voting until 9:00 PM Eastern Time on Sunday, October 21, 2012.
Since this blog is public, I do not know whether the person who offered this comment is a delegate to Convention USA. Nonetheless, the points raised should be answered.
The first motion to approve rules was the subject of a motion to amend. It was after that motion was offered that a motion to refer was made. The overwhelming support for referring to committee did not mean that the delegates were opposed to adopting the rules. It meant that the delegates either were not interested in or did not feel qualified to debate the rules. They wanted a committee to give them a recommendation.
The committee appointed did not return with a unanimous recommendation. Instead, members of the committee offered amendments to the rules on the floor. Again, the delegates did not want to debate the details of rules on the convention floor, and they referred the matter back to committee.
The rules are finally being voted on, which is what most delegate wanted in the first place.
The convention having recessed until this hour pending the vote on the motion to approve the rules published on the convention web site, the convention is reconvened;
It appearing that the vote on the pending motion is in the affirmative, The Chair declares that the rules as published on the web site are approved as the rules of the convention.
This action completes the consideration of the agenda for Day TWO of the convention.
The Chair will now entertain a motion to adjourn to a day certain.
Delegates are requested, before the next session, to inform the Chair of their interest in appointment to committees or their willingness to serve as officers of the convention.
I move to adjourn until called by the chair.
There is a motion by Delegate Fischer of Indiana that the Convention be adjourned pending the call of the chair.
Is there a second for the motion?
Mr. Chair I second.
The motion to adjourn pending th call of the Chair has been seconded.
Is there any discussion or objection?
Mr. Chair
I am seconding the motion to adjourn to a day certain.
Mr. chair,
I DID NOT second, pending the call of the chair.
The motion to adjourn pending the call of the Chair has been seconded. Is there any discussion or objection?
Mr. Chair,
No Objection.
Apparently when Delegate McCormick seconded the motion, he did not understand that the only motion on the floor was to adjourn pending the call of the chair.
The Chair will rule that Delegate McCormick did not second the motion of Delegate Fischer.
Is there support for the motion by Delegate Fischer to adjourn pending the call of the Chaior?
I should like to ask the chairman a question
Mr. Chair,
Please define "call of the Chair"?
Delegate McCormick is recognized to ask a point of informtion.
"Call of the Chair" simply means that the Convention is adjourned until notice is given of its reconvening by the Chairman.
Delegate Ben Prather FL(012)
I second the motion to adjourn pending the call of the Chair.
Another Question, please.
Delegate Fischer's motion to adjourn pending the call of the Chair has been supported by Delegate Prather.
Is there any discussion or objection?
Delegate McCormick is recognized again.
Mr. Chair,
Point of information please. "Delegates are requested, before the next session, to inform the Chair of their interest in appointment to committees or their willingness to serve as officers of the convention." should this be done here or email?
Either way.
If there are no objections to the motion by Delegate Fischer to adjourn pending the Call of the Chair posted within the next five minutes, the motion will be adopted unanimously without objection.
Delegate Ben Prather (FL012)
Point of Inquiry:
I assume that the agenda for Day 3 will be the election of officers. When would be the appropriate time for Delegates willing to serve to provide a summary of there qualifications for office to the remaining delegates?
It would be appropriate for delegates wishing to be elected to an office to contact fellow delegates by email, or on the Delegate Forum page of the ConventionUSA web site.
If more than one Delegate expresses interest in an office, an election will be scheduled.
There being no objections posted, the motion to adjourn pending the call of the Chair is adopted unanimously, and it is so ordered.
The convention stands adjourned.
Post a Comment