BIZ  SOUNDS LIKE A DUMB ASS AND THE TA WAS BLOWING BLUE SMOKE OUT OF HIS ASSS.

jeepers  creepers that paulson sonded like a dumb ass , chinesse studies in high school worry about the budget , you sounded like a wind bag,   boy do i long for the days of true leader ship that  mr haney gave us.       figures that dont add up , wording on the town meeting warrant that  sounds like  it was written  by a third  grader ,and watching the t a andrews talking out of his left ear was awfull ,throw these clowns out on there ass.

Since the state requires a certain amount of the town's budget to be spent on the schools, I believe such a motion would have had the effect of giving the schools free town administrated bussing plus the town would have had to pony up another 1.8 million to give to the schools to use on something else. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the geniuses of Move Wareham Backward.

Mr. Onset wrote:

Madam Moderator made the correct decision when she allowed the motion.  Moderators can only advise the body that a motion is illegal.  They can not prevent such a motion from being considered and passed.

Actually it was town counsel who stated that the motion was illegal.  Roberts Rules of Order does declare illegal motions to be out of order:  "47. Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous. No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void."

So if we have a moderator with the procedural power to stop motions that are out of order from going to a vote - which I don't think is in dispute,as that's been a long-standing practice by past moderators - then as a parliamentary point I don't see why the moderator couldn't have prevented the motion in  question from going to the floor.

Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-05-04 09:53:48)

This is interesting stuff. I'll bet both P the M and Mr. O know Claire Smith , and I encourage you both to get into a conversation with her about this tricky one.  It would be a good educational experience for "the body", perhaps, to revisit last night's surprise motion at the start of Round 2 tonight. It seems to me that if Counsel knew that the motion was illegal, he  probably also knew that if it had passed that it would have been null and void.  I find myself wishing he'd expressed that for the edification of all the folks out there like me who wish there was a black and yellow book at Borders  titled, "Town Meeting and Roberts  Rules of Order For Dummies" !

I have to add, and I know we are as one on this, that getting Claire Smith as our moderator is the best thing that has happened on this planet since the invention of duct tape.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

I find myself wishing he'd expressed that for the edification of all the folks out there like me who wish there was a black and yellow book at Borders  titled, "Town Meeting and Roberts  Rules of Order For Dummies" !

Voila!

http://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Dum … 0764575740

The devil in the present case, of course, is in how Robert's and Town Meeting Time intersect, along with the issue of whether Town Meeting Time anticipates the presence of counsel immediately rendering an opinion as to legality, which in turn begs the question of whether it is the moderator who is really ruling the motion illegal.

My sense is that Mr. Onset may be correct in the most pure sense and that his course is the more prudent.  But as a practical matter I can remember a time or two when a moderator may have stopped an article from going forward without a vote, albeit usually pertaining to zoning articles where it was obvious from the language of the article that an abutter plainly didn't receive the required notice of an impending change.  What I can't recall is whether a motion to vote on the article had been advanced prior to the moderator killing it.   

In any event, the fact we're quibbling over arcane technical details like this after last night's meeting - instead of once again expressing outrage at some major breach of the rules leading to trampled rights - certainly tells us that the voters absolutely made the right choice on April 6, 2010.

To Petethemeat -

In my haste I forgot to say that I have read a number of your posts in the past and very much appreciate and enjoy your clear thinking.  Regarding zoning articles - If the moderator is aware that mandatory conditions precedent have not been met (for example, no required public hearings), then she can rule the motion is not proper because this becomes a procedural issue.  Again, see page 65 of Town Meeting Time for more details.

It must be his sweet baby face  His ruling to allow Bill W to take photos (with conditions) was a move to allign with the "good guys" and leave Bruce in the dust.

He is a scum bag - douche bag -  in a three piece suit.

The TA and others left over from the Bruce years have "convused loyalty withdawal syndrome",

Last edited by mama bear (2010-05-04 23:14:57)

mama bear wrote:

It must be his sweet baby face  His ruling to allow Bill W to take photos (with conditions) was a move to allign with the "good guys" and leave Bruce in the dust.

it's actually a mass general law.. bonnie should have been given a copy of it from the town clerk and sign off on it when she was appointed.. ohh yeah that's right at the CRC meeting the clerk had NO idea about the law and what it said..