Updated: Saturday, 25 April 2015 8:42 AM CDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
« | April 2015 | » | ||||
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
It is Spring.
That seems to be when "Some People" come out of hibernation and ask tfhe Executive Committee if we could Please move the LCRCC monthly meeting ot the downtown Library.
This has happened the last two years.
One wonders if it will become an annual event.
The Swallows return to Capistrano,
The Buzzards return to Hinckley Hollow
And the "Some People" try to move the LCRCC meeting to the CR Library
The E Board has a big proffesional production.
A list of alternate sites a break down of expenses slanted to convince us there was only one conclusion
And the Conclusion was the same as Last Year
An overwhelming number want to stay at the Long Branch.
Now the Chair stated in a FB page
there was a discussion brought to the body by
requeat of
members of the body to
discuss alternative locations in light of the cost
increase
for the current venue. To ignore
the request would have been wrong so we shared
our
research, asked for input
Why the need for the E Board to do Research.
I have a idea that if "I" came to them and wanted the meeting moved it would go something like
Well then Mr Kauffman, put a case together and present it to the Body,
I don't expect them to drop everything and rush out to do research for me.,
Which is why I wonder WHO these "Some people" are?
And are they the SAME "Some People" that wanted the Communications Sub-Committee Meeting when we had a Communications Sub-Committee
Moved from Saturday Night at the Starlite
As I recall the At that Time Chair of the Communications Sub-Committee got berated over this by County Chair.
Back then it was as it is now and was last Spring, "Some People" have come to us and want this.
I asked tghe Communications Sub-Committee Chair at the time
Were you given the names and contact information of these "Some People"?
Turns out the answer was NO
So at the time I said let me get this straight, we are asked to move the meeting because "Some People" want it. but we don't know who they are how many they are and when they would prefer the meeting to be?
While we have about 14 members who are just fine with the way things are?
Yes was the answer I got then.
SO despite the fact that this motion was soundly defeated.
I would like to know
Who these people are
How many of them there are that want this
Oh and is the rumour True that someone on the behalf of the LCRCC has reserved a room in the CR Library for the next year?
The Image in tonight's Post is The Linn County Republican Central Committee Parliamentarian taking a publicly partisan position by voting.
When I was first appointed to the position the current Parliamentarian holds, I did quite a bit of research on the duties and responsibilites.
One of the First things I learned was that for a Parliamentarian neutrality ie non paritsanship was considered paramount
That a Parliamentarian shoud never vote unless by Secret Ballot.
That was a position I adhered to during my term in office,
Our present Parlaimentarian does not seem to value neutrality as an attribute of their position
When questioned on the propriety of their actions they replied that their opinion was that it was up to the discretion of the Parliamentarian.
While it IS true there are situations where a Parliamentarian may vote, tonight was not one of them.
I source Robert's Rules of Order
Chapter 18 Most Frequently Asked Questions
Voting
Under the questions
Does the Parliamentarian have a vote on motions, can he or she speak to motions
Can you please give me some insight as to how a parliamentarian should act during a meeting?
Unfortunately copy and paste is disabled for that website, so the readers will have to click on the above link and go to almost the bottom of the page
However it turns out that that very same issue was also ansered on the RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised) Discussion Forum
Posted 17 April 2015 - 03:06 PM
And if a member of the assembly, the parliamentarian should not be voting. From page 467:
"A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality,
and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote.
He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so.
If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position.
Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion."
I do not know upon what basis the LCRCC Parlaimentarian made their decision to vote publicly but the above seems rather clear and to the point.
Maintain the outward appearance of neutrality by refraining from voting with the excpetion of a secret ballot or
Resign
Another example of the difference between what Can be done and what Should be done was the brief flareup between the Chair and Mr Dahlsten over his Photos.
Mr Dahlsten has objected to the LCRCC Webmaster using photos upon which he has embedded Copyright Claims.
The Chair and our Webmaster seem to have taken the position that if Mr Dahslten puts the photos up on Facebook they have every LEGAL RIGHT to avail themselves of the use of those images.
It is True that the Policy of Facebook is to allow that as long as the Images are posted on Facebook. I believe that is in the Terms of Service,
This however does not address the ethical concerns
Since Mr. Dahlsten objects so vehemently to their use of his images why do they insist on doing so?
I suppose it might be true that as long as they insist on only torturing Mr Dahlsten there might not be as many wingless flies stumbling around the area, but besides that , what IS the point?
Rand Paul in Vinton, Iowa on April 25, 2015
11:30 AM
American Legion
105 N R Ave
Vinton, IA
We have new information
Yes according to that announcement
Rand Paul will be in Vinton April 25th
At an event oganized by the Linn County GOP
And not the Benton County GOP?
If you click on the Link you will be taken to THIS page
You heard it here first! Rand Paul will be in town. Come hear him speak.
More details to come
Well it proudly proclaims
You heard it here first!
So it MUST be true.
I have to admit. I just can't write stuff like this.
Our County Chair APPOINTED Stuff Like This.
Neither our Executive Board Nor our Marketing & PR Team have done the slightest thing about Stuff Like This.
I don't need to be creative.
My posts write themselves all I have to do is go online and see what these folks are up to.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is coming to Cedar Rapids next week!
Governor Walker will be attending a rally for us at the Cedar Rapids Marriott next Friday, April 24th. Get your FREE tickets here.
(Cedar Rapids, IA) Next Friday Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will attend a public rally with Congressman Rod Blum (R-Iowa). The event will be open to the media as well. Details are below.
Event: Meet & Greet/Rally with Congressman Rod Blum & Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Date: April 24th, 12:30-1:30PM
Location: Cedar Rapids Marriott Hotel
1200 Collins Road Northeast
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
You heard it here first, Gov. Scott Walker is coming to Cedar Rapids
More details to come!
Dr. Ben Carson and Congressman Rod Blum will be at the Cedar Rapids Marriot on May 5th at 4:30 PM.
Event is free.
You heard it here first!
That is NOT True and there is no doubt whatsoever about this Fact because
It seems that on the 28 January 2015 - 08:37 AM someone calling themselves
Started by jknox65 , Jan 28 2015 08:37 AM
And asked This Question
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:37 AM
I was wondering if motions that had passed during a previous Executive boards rein, do these carry over to the new presiding officers? Do motions bind the hands of a new body after an election? I would thing by-law changes would but I am uncertain about motions?
Can someone advise and reference where it may or may not support the expunging of previous sessions passed motions?
On the
For those who might not Know RONR Stands for
Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised
That is THE Officlal Roberts Rules of Order Website.
The Holy Grail. The Fount from which flows ALL recognized Parlaimentary Procedure.
Their answer?
An Emphatic and Resounding NO.
One even posted the page in Roberts Rules of Order 11th Edition where the NO might be found.
"Unless an adopted main motion specifies a time for the termination of its effect, it continues in force until it is rescinded." (RONR 11th ed., p. 111, ** footnote)
It is obvious that I am taking the position that the above jkox65 is the sqme person as the LCRCC's Webmaster James Knox.
Some might disagree, and like those who excused Mr Knox accidental attempt to Vote point out that there might be OTHER people besides him with the Username of jknox65
That IS possible, So despite being the Technological Dinosaur that I am purported to be I GOOGLED the Username jknox 65 and found
Name: James Knox
Date registered: September 30, 2012
I I I
I think we have a probability approaching Unity that the jknox65 on the RONR Discussion Forum, the Refounding Father Society and the Webmaster of the LCRCC James Knox are all the same person.
Now I must point out that this does not mean that the Chair and the Rest of the Exective Committee Lied to the Body
But a Valid Question would be
What did they Know and WHEN did they know it.
We know that on the moring of Janurary 28th of this year Mr Knox knew full well that the claim made that
• Under Roberts Rules of Order committees and motions passed during the previous cycle expire
Another Valid question would be WHERE did the concept that the above WAS true originate?
If it came from Mr Knox then I believe he should NEVER be allowed to be in ANY position of Responsibilty UNSUPERVISED
If it came from one of the persons from whom Parliamentarian advice was claimed then they should NOT ever be used as Parliamentarians again,
I think this goes way beyond a simple mistake or misinterpretation.
I have not the slightest doubt that Mr Chung would never in a thousand years allow something like this to slip by him HAD he been involved,
In conclusion I know not what others may think but the Executive Committee has a severe credibility gap with me and some things to explain at our Next Meeting
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:37 AM
I was wondering if motions that had passed during a previous Executive boards rein, do these carry over to the new presiding officers? Do motions bind the hands of a new body after an election? I would thing by-law changes would but I am uncertain about motions?
Can someone advise and reference where it may or may not support the expunging of previous sessions passed motions?
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:45 AM
"Unless an adopted main motion specifies a time for the termination of its effect, it continues in force until it is rescinded." (RONR 11th ed., p. 111, ** footnote)
Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:57 AM
jknox65, on 28 Jan 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:
Do motions bind the hands of a new body after an election?
No. The board is free to rescind (or otherwise amend) motions previously adopted by the board (assuming, of course, that the actions authorized by the motions have not been completed). There is no "expunging".
It's best not to think of "the old board" and "the new board". It's just "the board" (with occasional changes in membership).
Everything I know about RONR I learned from Mr. Mountcastle. And everything he knows about RONR he learned from this forum.
Posted 28 January 2015 - 01:51 PM
No, they don't bind the hands of a future body any more than they bind the hands of the current body.
--
=GPN
Unless otherwise indicated, responses are based upon the current edition of RONR as of the date of posting. The rules in your bylaws supersede those in RONR.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Again I just don't understand why someone would lie about something anyone can bring up on a computer and see.