editoradmin
< The Rosewood Rambler, Number 3
And Yet Another Last Word
by Jake Warner
First, let me clearly state that Glenn Engebretsen’s recounting of the convention’s action in Last Word, February 1975, is entirely correct. The amended motion was not voted on.
The reason it was not voted on was honest confusion and simple incompetence on the part of the presiding officer. I realized this a few days later and was perturbed until a little research on our blessed constitution revealed a strange fact:
It makes absolutely no difference.
There are two possibilities: (1) The fact that the convention thought it was voting on the motion may mean that legally it did so. That is, the chair claimed that the vote was on the amended motion, and there was no objection from the floor. Or, (2) The original motion was amended and the amended motion died for lack of action on it. I believe this is the more reasonable conclusion. In this case, Glenn’s statement that the convention “neither accepted nor rejected” is quite correct. No one could conclude from the convention’s action that the Judges’ Report was accepted. Certainly, Glenn does not.
But read Sec. 8, Par. 8(b): “Such decisions shall be effective immediately, but shall be subject to the action of the ensuing convention and shall become final when ratified by a majority vote thereof.”
This clearly and unmistakably means that only ratification makes the decisions final. No action at all is rejection. Note that even the amended motion did not specifically say “reject” but simply “accept only the first two items….”
So, if one concludes that the amended motion died of incompletion, it means that all three decisions of the judges were not ratified and were therefore negated. The other two decisions, however, pertain to completed actions and, therefore, were properly conducted under the phrase “effective immediately” and failure to carry through the parliamentary procedure has produced essentially the same result as if the amended motion had been passed.
If this blunder on the part of the presiding officer had thwarted the will of the convention, I would feel very bad about it. I am sure that no one present at that session will claim that the group intended to accept Item 3. Therefore the will of the group was not subverted, and I need only to feel stupid but not to feel guilty.
Let us amicably find an amendment to allow publishers the option of entering another’s works. If the creator has the right to refuse entry and has control of the classification, I can see nothing wrong with it. If the present proposed amendment isn’t satisfactory, then let’s have a new one at Cleveland.
Something favored by Glenn Engebretsen, Gale Sheldon, J. Ed. Newman, Tom Whitbread, Ramon Meyer and others of that ilk cannot possibly be bad for the association, and every effort should be made to achieve a reasonable compromise.
Hand set, printed, and published by
Leah G. Warner
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770