November 13, 2018
To whom it may concern,
"Nothing against this organization I am currently engaged in, but folks, the parli pro we use for our delegate sessions is straight up wickity wack" said my inner-noggin as I sat on the floor during a policy development meeting on Monday. I will provide one story- and only one story to prevent the inevitable fumes erupting from the ears of a green, yet eager parliamentarian such as myself . I would ask anyone reading this to give me your input, did I do the right thing?
11:25 am. Monday November 12, 2018.
The way this organization does this is quite impressive and brilliant. Policies are provided prior to the session, reviewed by a committee and then submitted to the delegates to be deleted or amended. I should also let you know that this assembly approved their own set of rules, with nothing included about previous question. After debating on the deletion of an item, a member called "question" which of course was a relief because we were at 1 of a few hundred to review. WARNING: This is where it went down.
The chair states "The question has been called, we will now vote on the motion to delete..." BRUH. Goodbye Justin Kurtz, a new and improved, ddf12 creation has been unleashed on this delegate floor. Of course I shoot up and say "MR. CHAIR POINT OF ORDER, POINT OF OR-". To which a confused VP responds with "Give that kid a microphone". "Hello, Justin Kurtz, Centre County, I rise to a point of order because the call for previous question is a subsidiary motion requiring a 2/3 vote. Essentially we should vote on the previous question, closing debate, and then vote on the motion." Still confused, and now panicked, the chair refers to his consultants who responded that when we voted to suspend the rules, the previous question was also suspended so as soon as any member says question, debate comes to a close. BIG BRUH. I sat down, feeling defeated, and oddly enough yearning for Dr. Foster's presence to whip out his RONR and save the day. I mean seriously, just because one person wants to stop debate, we are going to restrict the right of debate to members? I am pretty sure this is would be out of line when referring to the characteristics of a Deliberative Assembly.
But hey, I guess if it works for them, maybe we should just let the custom be what drives the business? Or maybe we could just cover all of our bases when introducing special rules for an assembly? What are the downfalls of relying on custom? Was it more a hinderance when I stood to a point of order? Let me know,
Sincerely,
A Parli Peer & Pupil
No comments:
Post a Comment