Arkansas City will not be the focus now, but we can still talk about the town. For now the blog is a blog in search of an identity. Considering what the new niche will be.
I believe "calling the question" takes an immediate vote. HOWEVER, not a vote on the original motion, but a vote on whether to call the question or not.
Therefore, when the question is called, the board would vote on calling the question and then if it is approved, they would vote on the original motion. If the vote on calling the question is declined, discussion would presume on the original motion.
I wonder if there are any local plumbing/mechanical contractors interested in doing the sprinkler, (and maybe the hvac) system on the new mob? It's a darn good thing our elected elite realized the need for one!
the thing is, they have not been following the rules exactly for awhile, so archer wants to gather up all the rules of meeting, have them look at them, and decide what they want to do.
you should also not have people interrupting meetings and asking questions in the middle of a discussion. so, how closely should they follow the rules of order. consistency should be the thing.
They should have let people speak if McDonald was 'wore down' he should have left the room and taken a break, not blocked people from being heard. Since the commission was the only ones talking his comments about listening better to fellow commissioners and the public was just lip service.
That is one of the main points of the rules of order; consistency along with fairness.
It is gross negligence of the rules to allow Jean Snell to arbitrarily decide when the discussion ends.
I think there is an opportunity to demand the original motion "null and void". This could easily be based on an improper vote being taken due to an improper end to discussion.
I seriously doubt it will change the vote outcome, but it would be cool to open debate back up and make them listen to the people wanting to talk.
According to two of the sharpest minds in investing -- Warren Buffett and George Soros -- the answer is no, the bull is not back. To the contrary, "Financial Crisis, Part II" may be coming soon to a theater near you.
Something wicked this way comes Testifying before Congress last week, Buffett warned that we could be standing on the brink of the next financial crisis. A brink which begins, as it turns out, right at your city limits.
Congress had asked Mr. Buffett to testify about the role that credit raters Moody's (NYSE: MCO) and Standard & Poor's played in the last financial crisis. But in the course of doing so, lawmakers couldn't resist the urge to pick Buffett's brain. And so it was that Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission chairman Phil Angelides asked: Where's the next big risk to our economy? Buffett's reply:
If you are looking now at something where you could look back later on and say, "These ratings were crazy," [municipal bonds] would be the area. I don't think [Moody's or S&P] or I can come up with anything terribly insightful about the question of the state and municipal finance five or 10 years from now except for the fact there will be a terrible problem and then the question becomes: will the federal government bail them out?
Buffett's backing up his views with actions. In 2009, Berkshire only insured $40 million in new muni bond issues versus a whopping $595 million than in 2008. So if you were wondering why you're hearing how so much state and municipal debt has been "sold short" by way of credit default swaps in recent months, then you have an answer: Investors think munis are going down.
Roadmap to the next bailout How did the states and municipalities get in their current fix? Take your pick(s): Runaway entitlement spending. Massive unfunded liabilities in public pensions. In short: Debt loads that more resemble a mountain than a molehill. Unless something happens quickly to slow and reverse the tide, we're going to see a lot of states and municipalities go broke. In fact, up in Rhode Island, one town took the unusual step of having a receiver appointed, as an alternative to bankruptcy in a state that doesn't allow towns to file for it.
Of course, the governments that issue muni bonds will tell you this is all just bunk. They'll cite historical statistics showing that municipalities hardly ever default, and argue that their bonds should enjoy high ratings from the raters to reflect that fact.
But here's the thing -- quoting now from Buffett's letter to shareholders in Berkshire's 2008 annual report: "[T]hat record [of low default rates] largely reflects the experience of entities that issued uninsured bonds. Insurance of tax-exempt bonds didn't exist before 1971, and even after that most bonds remained uninsured." Indeed, as recently as 1980, only 3% of new bond issues were insured; by 2007, that number had climbed to 60%. Today, more than half the estimated $2.8 trillion worth of municipal bonds floating around out there carry some form of insurance.
-----------
From an article on Motley Fool! You'll have to read the rest!
I believe "calling the question" takes an immediate vote. HOWEVER, not a vote on the original motion, but a vote on whether to call the question or not.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, when the question is called, the board would vote on calling the question and then if it is approved, they would vote on the original motion. If the vote on calling the question is declined, discussion would presume on the original motion.
I would assume all the big-wigs in the commissioners meeting knew this (and acted appropriately). Common knowledge, really.
ReplyDeleteUsually, it takes a two-thirds vote to approve calling the question...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there are any local plumbing/mechanical contractors interested in doing the sprinkler, (and maybe the hvac) system on the new mob? It's a darn good thing our elected elite realized the need for one!
ReplyDeletethe thing is, they have not been following the rules exactly for awhile, so archer wants to gather up all the rules of meeting, have them look at them, and decide what they want to do.
ReplyDeleteyou should also not have people interrupting meetings and asking questions in the middle of a discussion.
so, how closely should they follow the rules of order.
consistency should be the thing.
They should have let people speak if McDonald was 'wore down' he should have left the room and taken a break, not blocked people from being heard.
ReplyDeleteSince the commission was the only ones talking his comments about listening better to fellow commissioners and the public was just lip service.
JJ,
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the main points of the rules of order; consistency along with fairness.
It is gross negligence of the rules to allow Jean Snell to arbitrarily decide when the discussion ends.
I think there is an opportunity to demand the original motion "null and void". This could easily be based on an improper vote being taken due to an improper end to discussion.
I seriously doubt it will change the vote outcome, but it would be cool to open debate back up and make them listen to the people wanting to talk.
According to two of the sharpest minds in investing -- Warren Buffett and George Soros -- the answer is no, the bull is not back. To the contrary, "Financial Crisis, Part II" may be coming soon to a theater near you.
ReplyDeleteSomething wicked this way comes
Testifying before Congress last week, Buffett warned that we could be standing on the brink of the next financial crisis. A brink which begins, as it turns out, right at your city limits.
Congress had asked Mr. Buffett to testify about the role that credit raters Moody's (NYSE: MCO) and Standard & Poor's played in the last financial crisis. But in the course of doing so, lawmakers couldn't resist the urge to pick Buffett's brain. And so it was that Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission chairman Phil Angelides asked: Where's the next big risk to our economy? Buffett's reply:
If you are looking now at something where you could look back later on and say, "These ratings were crazy," [municipal bonds] would be the area. I don't think [Moody's or S&P] or I can come up with anything terribly insightful about the question of the state and municipal finance five or 10 years from now except for the fact there will be a terrible problem and then the question becomes: will the federal government bail them out?
Buffett's backing up his views with actions. In 2009, Berkshire only insured $40 million in new muni bond issues versus a whopping $595 million than in 2008. So if you were wondering why you're hearing how so much state and municipal debt has been "sold short" by way of credit default swaps in recent months, then you have an answer: Investors think munis are going down.
Roadmap to the next bailout
How did the states and municipalities get in their current fix? Take your pick(s): Runaway entitlement spending. Massive unfunded liabilities in public pensions. In short: Debt loads that more resemble a mountain than a molehill. Unless something happens quickly to slow and reverse the tide, we're going to see a lot of states and municipalities go broke. In fact, up in Rhode Island, one town took the unusual step of having a receiver appointed, as an alternative to bankruptcy in a state that doesn't allow towns to file for it.
Of course, the governments that issue muni bonds will tell you this is all just bunk. They'll cite historical statistics showing that municipalities hardly ever default, and argue that their bonds should enjoy high ratings from the raters to reflect that fact.
But here's the thing -- quoting now from Buffett's letter to shareholders in Berkshire's 2008 annual report: "[T]hat record [of low default rates] largely reflects the experience of entities that issued uninsured bonds. Insurance of tax-exempt bonds didn't exist before 1971, and even after that most bonds remained uninsured." Indeed, as recently as 1980, only 3% of new bond issues were insured; by 2007, that number had climbed to 60%. Today, more than half the estimated $2.8 trillion worth of municipal bonds floating around out there carry some form of insurance.
-----------
From an article on Motley Fool!
You'll have to read the rest!
There's more??
ReplyDelete