[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle
dfm at ringing.org
Sun May 25 02:12:43 UTC 2014
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Robert Bennett <rbennett at woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> Amendments to motions, which negate or reverse the effect of the
> motion, tend to cause disorderly meetings.
> For that reason, that sort of amendment are not usually permitted;
> they are usually ruled out of order. (See Robert's rules of order [no
> relation of mine])
Ah, sorry, a poor suggestion of mine, then. Richard's original
suggestion then makes more sense. Vote down the motion, and, at
whatever point is appropriate, make the alternative one. Thanks for
pointing out the problem, and my apologies for unintentially
attempting to throw a spanner into things.
I suppose it could be argued that in this case the amendment is
neither negating nor reversing the original motion, rather suggesting
a simpler alternative path to the same original goal, which was to
enable the Decisions to encompass the Cambridge peal. But I can see
that that argument for allowing the amendment might be unlikely to
persuade those who would need persuading.
Perhaps the best way forward, if a Council member does in fact wish to
pursue it, as I hope one will, would be, before the meeting, for that
member to discuss with Kate Flavell and Peter Niblett how best they'd
like the matter handled, to ensure an orderly presentation of the
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Your fortune is not something to find but something to unfold."
-- found, folded, in a fortune cookie
More information about the ringing-theory