there must have been a better way to do this...

[cellio]

The following from the corporate seneschal's report of the latest SCA board meeting left me scratching my head:

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 26, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: None. Opposed: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood. Recused: Shawn Reed. Motion failed.

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 27, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood, Opposed: None. Recused: Shawn Reed. Chairman Williams exercised his option to vote and did so in favor of the motion. Motion carried.

I had to read it a couple times to spot the difference. They changed the effective date. That's all. There has to have been a better way to do that, no? Doesn't standard parliamentary procedure permit both amending and withdrawing a motion on the table?

When I read the first one my reaction was "wow, the case for this was so weak that even the person making the motion recanted". But (and noting that we do not have access to the actual discussion), that appears not to have been the case.

Comments

[cellio]

They have certainly become more common, and disproportionately with growth in membership so far as I can tell. Part of it is probably that there's more money in group and corporate coffers now, so more of an attraction to those inclined toward financial misappropriation. I have the impression that financial misdeeds account for a non-trivial portion (but still a minority) of banishments. As for the rest, I'm not sure. This state does not make me happy.