TO RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
I am currently writing a book which I hope will launch the Article V convention we all hope to see.
There are several important changes in our convention rules which will need to be made in order to facilitate the new direction in which I hope to move Convention USA.
These particularly involve the following:
1. declare that the convention will have 6,163 delegtes.
2. declare that those delegates will reside in and represent 1,186 districts drawn along county lines in which the ratio of constituents to delegates shall not vary more than ten percent from 50,000 to one, according to the census of 2010.
3. Declare that delegates in contested districts will be chosen by elections held on the Internet on the first Tuesday in November, 2014.
4. Declare that the delegates shall convene in Saint Louis, Missouri on the second Monday in May, 2015, at 9:00 AM Central Time, in a facility to be announced.
There may be some other riles which wold need to be reviewed in order to accommodate this new direction.
I will email all committee members and invite comments. If we can agree on this approach, I would like to convene the convention and get the rule changes adopted before my book is published.
TEB
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Motion to Commit
The Convention entertained and seconded my motion to consider, discuss, and report on changing from trying to get a quorum to meeting for a session on a given date and time TO an "always ON" Convention. I have been involved with several and can explain how it would work extremely well for what we are doing. Please allow me to explain the details to the committee during its deliberations on MY motion.
I am not so sure this would require an addition to the rules themselves, since the rules already read 2) Whenever possible, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of the Convention.
and
3) A quorum shall consist of one or more Delegates from at least thirty-four State Caucuses.
"Always on" would simple recognize the FACT that ALL Captains may participate withing the time constraints established at the Convention 24/7, meaning that ALL make up the quorum, since ALL may be involved in the session. The actual voting would still have to be a majority of at least 18 States or a Super-Majority of at least 22 States and ratifying vote would require at least 37 States.
All the "always on" does is open the Convention up without having to try to cram or set aside a day, time, hour, etc. in order to participate.
I am not so sure this would require an addition to the rules themselves, since the rules already read 2) Whenever possible, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of the Convention.
and
3) A quorum shall consist of one or more Delegates from at least thirty-four State Caucuses.
"Always on" would simple recognize the FACT that ALL Captains may participate withing the time constraints established at the Convention 24/7, meaning that ALL make up the quorum, since ALL may be involved in the session. The actual voting would still have to be a majority of at least 18 States or a Super-Majority of at least 22 States and ratifying vote would require at least 37 States.
All the "always on" does is open the Convention up without having to try to cram or set aside a day, time, hour, etc. in order to participate.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
CONVENTION USA RULES COMMITTEE
THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CREATED AS A SITE FOR THE MEETINGS OF THE RULES COMMITTEE OF CONVENTION USA. COMMENTS BY DELEGATES AND OTHERS WILL BE PUBLISHED BUT MAY BE REMOVED AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
Dear Rules Committee Members:
Please excuse my lack of response to these various suggestions by Delegate Prather. I had had difficulty getting access to the blog, but now all seems to be in order.
Let me begin to suggesting some common terms we might use in communicating with each other. The correct abbreviation for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition) which is the current edition of Robert's and the official parliamentary authority of the Convention, is RONR. I suggest we use this shortland when referring to Robert's and when we quote rules from our parliamentary authority, I suggest we use: RONR, page 322, line 6-9. This will make it clear to all of us what part of RONR we are referring to.
It would be helpful to me if each member of the rules committee responded to this blog post and included your name and email address so that if we wish to email each other, we all have each other's email.
I wait to hear form each of you.
We have a set of rules in place for the Convention. Our role as the Rules Committee is to continue to monitor the rules and offer any suggestions for changes we feel are helpful.
I would suggest that if you have an opportunity, it would be good for you to review Madison's notes on the rules used at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The rules were fairly simple and included, final authority by the Chair to rule on all points of order without appeal, motions needing to be adopted by a majority of the state delegations, and unlimited right to reconsider an item which motion could be moved by any delegate not only those who voted on the prevailing side.
These three rules are notably different from the current edition of RONR. So I believe we ought to at least discuss whether we want to follow the example of 1787 or use our own rules. Possibly, since any amendment to the US Constition would require more than a majority of the states, maybe we should have a higher requirement than a majority of the states.
Other than that, I believe the other two rules are far superior in the case of our Convention to RONR. What would be your opinions about this?
I look forward to hearing from each of you.
Sincerly,
Dr. Leonard M. Young, PRP
Rules Committee Chairman
Dear Rules Committee Members:
Please excuse my lack of response to these various suggestions by Delegate Prather. I had had difficulty getting access to the blog, but now all seems to be in order.
Let me begin to suggesting some common terms we might use in communicating with each other. The correct abbreviation for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition) which is the current edition of Robert's and the official parliamentary authority of the Convention, is RONR. I suggest we use this shortland when referring to Robert's and when we quote rules from our parliamentary authority, I suggest we use: RONR, page 322, line 6-9. This will make it clear to all of us what part of RONR we are referring to.
It would be helpful to me if each member of the rules committee responded to this blog post and included your name and email address so that if we wish to email each other, we all have each other's email.
I wait to hear form each of you.
We have a set of rules in place for the Convention. Our role as the Rules Committee is to continue to monitor the rules and offer any suggestions for changes we feel are helpful.
I would suggest that if you have an opportunity, it would be good for you to review Madison's notes on the rules used at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The rules were fairly simple and included, final authority by the Chair to rule on all points of order without appeal, motions needing to be adopted by a majority of the state delegations, and unlimited right to reconsider an item which motion could be moved by any delegate not only those who voted on the prevailing side.
These three rules are notably different from the current edition of RONR. So I believe we ought to at least discuss whether we want to follow the example of 1787 or use our own rules. Possibly, since any amendment to the US Constition would require more than a majority of the states, maybe we should have a higher requirement than a majority of the states.
Other than that, I believe the other two rules are far superior in the case of our Convention to RONR. What would be your opinions about this?
I look forward to hearing from each of you.
Sincerly,
Dr. Leonard M. Young, PRP
Rules Committee Chairman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)