**In Part 6 you will see how some of the “Green Shirts” try to manipulate the motion to include two separate items…..to ‘hurry things along’. I’m not going to transcribe this one verbatim but I will try to give you the meat of what is said. There’s a lot of confusion, due to the moderator’s inexperience with Roberts Rules, and there are a lot of repetitive remarks.
PART 6
Joe Mahan: That was not an amended motion.
Moderator: That was a motion. That was his motion and there was a 2nd on the motion. We are in discussion of that motion as it is. There is no other question. There is a motion on the floor that is being discussed right now. It is to accept that resolution as he modified it.
Marci: I’d like to say a couple things. 1. I don’t think the people who voted on moving #11 to #1 knew that it entailed mushing things together and then voting on a bunch of stuff all in one; and 2. I don’t think the stand up – sit down works in that situation. You have no idea if everybody here is a registered voter or not. So how do we know if more than 50% are registered voters?
Moderator: I understand what you’re saying. (without attempting to address the question, points to a “Green shirt”)
Mr Ziller: There’s two things we’re here to vote on tonight. #1 is a general …of those two questions. We can do this in one question. That’s what this is about. Not sitting here going through many resolutions.
Moderator: or by suggestion if you want to modify that into two to make this clean. There’s a lot of discussion here.
Joe Mahan: I move that we amend that motion into two parts. The original and the second.
Moderator: To get this correctly…..you can’t do it that way. You have to move to strike the Lake in the Hills verbiage off there and to separate the resolution off.
Joe: I move to separate that resolution off.
Gloria Antonelli: I 2nd.
Moderator: Discussion on the amendment. The amendment is to strike the Lake in the Hills, Haligus Road real property as stated in the original agreement from the purchase of that property on January 22nd, 2009 which gives Lake in the Hills the right to re-purchase the property from Grafton Township….to strike that off of there and merely stay with the first part of Mr Kurns motion which is To accept the resolution by the Township by Mr Cohen. To adopt the resolution. That’s what the amendment is.
Dawn: I think it should be split into two votes. They are not entirely the same issue. I don’t know why you would be afraid to let people to make two different decisions and thinking them through and voting them both. It’s the research we did before we came here tonight. There are two separate issues. One is the old building and the sale back or not. The other is the Haligus Rd property.
Moderator: Any further discussion?
Unknown Male: I’m not affiliated with the pros or the means here. I’m just somewhat interest in what going on. It seems to me that Mr Cohens comments sort of muddied the waters. My discussion point is: why don’t we table or strike the comments of Mr Cohen and just go with the first motion and vote yes ot no. Some of them may need more discussion on, perhaps but lets just vote yes or no and move on. And if he wants to make another motion, that’s fine.
Moderator: I’d like to make a clarification here. Mr Cohen merely read the resolution that the motion was made to it….he explained what he (Mr Kurns) was discerning with his motion, He explained that.
Unknown Male: No but I have some contract experience and so what his comments did was modify the interpretation of his (Mr Kurns) motion. So by introducing his (Mr Cohen) comments, doesn’t jive with what is happing in #11.
Mr Kurns: The reason that we put those two together is because #11 deals with the potential action and sale….of township property. So to do that, this question entails everything that’s in the upper 9 questions….is all done in this question with the motion that I just made which turns everything back the way it was before 2007. And we’ve spent enough money on legal ramifications and we need to do this and have it done. I urge everybody to vote yes on this the way it was read.
Wayne Schmidt: I think its easy to clarify this. #11 was explained by (Keri-Lyn Krafthefer ). She got up and said basically what #11 was about…the first six items, I believe it was, and the others were based on the Haligus purchase. ….so really there are two different points here. 1, we have to work on the Vine St thing first to get that back the way it was supposed to be. And secondly, then, to rescind the Haligus purchase……I thinks it’s very clear on this.
Moderator: We are discussing the amendment to the motion to strike.
Click to view Part 7
No comments:
Post a Comment