Moderator: SC Moderators
I have asked Pat that the rules for the RA as stated in the constitution be posted in the meeting room of the RA so everyone can see them at all times. This is so we ALL can operate under the rules. And so that the citizens observing can also see what is supposed to happen at an RA meeting. I have been very disappointed that our LRA has not followed the rules for conduction RA meetings. I have rights as a citizen. And i expect them to be observed.
theprincess
ThePrincess -
Which rules are you alleging I have broken? Could you back up your assertion with some evidence please?
yes pat.. i am supposed to be allowed to request that an agenda item be placed on next weeks agenda and a vote of the RA confirm that it is to be. I have asked you two weeks in a row for this and you have ignored my request both in IM and open.
Well, I don't think that you have requested an agenda item and been turned down.
First of all, IMs do not count. You need to request that an agenda item be put on the agenda in the meeting when you have the floor.
Secondly, you waited until after I had proposed we adjourn last Sunday's meeting to make your request. If you wanted to put your agenda item 'Any other business' onto the next meeting's agenda you should have raised this in good time for the RA to consider your request. Bringing it up while we were voting on whether to adjourn, two and a half hours after the meeting started and half an hour beyond our usual working time was only likely to lead to chaos and confusion, which it did.
Patroklus Murakami wrote:Well, I don't think that you have requested an agenda item and been turned down.
First of all, IMs do not count. You need to request that an agenda item be put on the agenda in the meeting when you have the floor.
Secondly, you waited until after I had proposed we adjourn last Sunday's meeting to make your request. If you wanted to put your agenda item 'Any other business' onto the next meeting's agenda you should have raised this in good time for the RA to consider your request. Bringing it up while we were voting on whether to adjourn, two and a half hours after the meeting started and half an hour beyond our usual working time was only likely to lead to chaos and confusion, which it did.
Pat, how can you POSSIBLY expect anyone to "raise their hand" to bring up other business before you call for adjournment when you refuse to recognize the right of RA members to raise business that is not on the agenda? This is one of the "reforms" that Beathan has been calling for: that there be a permanent "other business" item on the agenda and that you specifically ask for "other business" before adjourning.
I'll also comment that last week's meeting probably could have been accomplished in half the time had you merely called for discussion and then a vote on the motions that were proposed and seconded rather than brushing them aside in favor of your own counter-proposals. Almost everyone was in favor of authorizing a new sim -- but it took a ridiculous amount of time to get to any kind of vote. Not to mention that your insistence that the RA vote on three mutually exclusive proposals of your own crafting in a complicated, unclear, (and unprecedented) "runoff" process was....well, completely unnecessary. You made up that process as you went along -- it wasn't anything that was specified in the RA procedures. I've referred to your leadership process as "Pat's Rules" and been admonished for it, but this kind of thing as well as the trick of calling for adjournment to prevent other business from being raised is what I'm talking about. These may not be technical violations of the rules, but they sure don't foster a team process!
I really applaud Beathan's steadiness of mind and firm focus on Simplicity in this whole conversation -- he's done a lot to elevate the discussion towards issues and away from personal "stuff" that keeps distracting us from the important things. Certainly you have a right to be frustrated with the lack of order displayed by some RA members, but Beathan's attempts to encourage you (and the rest of the RA) to develop a clear and simple process that makes ALL RA members feel as though they do not have to shout and interrupt in order for their voices to be heard are definitely a step in the right direction. The current rules are not working in part because you choose to ignore them or interpret them in a way that makes the rest of the RA team feel disenfranchised. I know you're not happy about the prospect of adopting Roberts Rules of Order (short version for small organizations), but the current situation is untenable and I have yet to hear anyone propose an alternative. If nothing else RRO (or other outside organizational rulebooks) have the virtue of having been tested and demonstrated to be workable for a wide variety of organizations over a long period of time. Given the current insanity, perhaps it's time to give something like this a try.
Cindy
You must of been at a different meeting that I was Cindy.
What I saw was someone who has been trying his best, and in return has been needled, attacked, had people circulate to talking to everyone who is active in the CDS to to complain how he is selfish and not working in the CDS's interests, accused publicly of being authoritarian, recently has had constitutional amendments directed personally at deposing him proposed and debated.
At this last meeting we had several factions making multiple complex proposals about the development of a new sim, and Pat was bending over backwards, way way way backwards, to make sure everyone had their say.
Now, when Claude was LRA, he often would have to disappear in the middle of the meeting for family reasons or cut it short because of other commitments. The people who were RA members then were respectful and did not continue to pass motions after he was gone. In fact we were of the opinion, I think this is right, that we could not change the agenda and pass motions without him.
We might quibble about Pat getting a bit mad at his treatment and reacting (it has been truly extraordinary), but that does not excuse those who are using some extremely disruptive tactics to force things their way.
[quote="Patroklus Murakami"]
Secondly, you waited until after I had proposed we adjourn last Sunday's meeting to make your request. /quote]
Pat --
Critical misstatement of fact here. We did not adjourn last Sunday's meeting. A motion to adjourn failed. We then continued the meeting without adjournment.
This is important because it means that last weeks agenda remains open to be taken up at the point where we left it.
I think you should not even prepare a new agenda. However, if you do prepare a new agenda, that agenda should be taken up only after we have completed last week's agenda and adjourned the meeting. We can adjourn and reconvene in the same session, I suppose, if we have time.
Beathan
Beathan -
There's no misstatement of fact in the bit you quoted. I moved that we adjourn at 14:16, quarter of an hour after the usual end of our RA meetings. It was only at that point that ThePrincess made her proposal to have 'any other business' as an agenda item the following week. Whether the meeting in fact adjourned or not is irrelevant, I didn't say that we did. I said that ThePrincess made her proposal "while we were voting on whether to adjourn". That is factually correct.
This is a prime example of how unreasonable you and NuCARE and allies are being. The meeting had overrun, I proposed adjournment, Brian indicated he needed to leave, I said I needed to leave and yet you refused to adjourn the meeting just so that you could have a row the 'any other business' issue. If ThePrincess was serious about using the RA procedures to get this included in the following week's agenda she should have put forward her motion earlier in the meeting. But, instead, it was brought up at the last minute when RA members needed to leave and when, as Chair, I said I needed to go! Refusing to adjourn, ignoring the rulings of the chair, passing motions after the Chair has left - these are not the actions of responsible people.
i did request them in the meetings and in IM too because you didnt listen to me in open. you know that is a fact pat.
Pat --
The RA adjourns when a motion to adjourn is made, seconded and passed. A motion was made and seconded, but it failed to pass. Therefore, we did not a adjourn. A later motion to continue the hearing without adjournment was then made, seconded and passed. Therefore, we continued the hearing without adjournment. Review the transcript -- including the continuation of the transcript I posted reflecting events after you left.
If the meeting is considered to have been adjourned, even though the adjournment motion failed, we will have a serious Constitutional problem -- the LRA will be making the rest of the RA irrelevant, and this will be a serious problem the SC will have to consider. However, it is likely that the SC will not consider the matter because the SC does not have jurisdiction over RA procedures. At that point, we will be at a serious impasse.
Why can't you just accept the actions of the RA -- on proper motion, with majority support -- even if the RA does something different than you, as LRA, want us to do.
Beathan
RA Meeting Procedures wrote:If the membership feels that the LRA has not brought an agenda item to the meeting that they want, a petition agreed to by a majority of all members can insert an agenda item into the list for the next meeting.
You did that at the end of the meeting when we were in the middle of the vote on adjournment.
Patroklus Murakami: i move we adjourn
ThePrincess? Parisi: nooo
Beathan Vale: second
ThePrincess? Parisi: i move that next week
Brian Livingston: Sounds good.
ThePrincess? Parisi: we have any othe rbuisness on the agenda
MT Lundquist: second
Sonja Strom: aye
ThePrincess? Parisi: i move that we vote to have aob on the agenda next week
Patroklus Murakami: sorry, we're in a vote on adjournment
You say you requested this earlier in the meeting, could you show me where you asked for a vote on this during the meeting? Also, I posted the draft agenda 24 hours in advance of the meeting. It didn't include 'Any other business' and yet you didn't make a request to add it to the agenda. If it was that important to you why did you wait til the vote on adjournment to raise the issue?
Beathan -
Please read this carefully...
Secondly, you waited until after I had proposed we adjourn last Sunday's meeting to make your request.
I did not say we had adjoured, I said I had proposed we adjourn.
Pat --
Ah, I stand corrected. So, you are saying that TP tried to add new business when there was a motion pending, and that therefore the matter was not properly raised because a well-ordered meeting can only consider one thing at a time (or else we would never have a clue what we are voting on). You are absolutely right.
I missed the critical words "proposed that we adjourn."
Mea Culpa, My apologies.
Beathan
Jon Seattle wrote:You must of been at a different meeting that I was Cindy.
What I saw was someone who has been trying his best, and in return has been needled, attacked, had people circulate to talking to everyone who is active in the CDS to to complain how he is selfish and not working in the CDS's interests, accused publicly of being authoritarian, recently has had constitutional amendments directed personally at deposing him proposed and debated.
Jon
What constitutional amendments Jon. If you are refering to the LRA bill it has a specific clause under transitional arrangements to protect the position of the current LRA.
MT
mtlundquist wrote:Jon Seattle wrote:What constitutional amendments Jon. If you are refering to the LRA bill it has a specific clause under transitional arrangements to protect the position of the current LRA.
Well, it was so good of you to add that later. After the debate had been going on for a while..