9 Senate remains the sole governing body of the University thru 15 June 2009. It is only an attempt by the incoming Senate President to understand the situation provided that the election of the VP at the May meeting of the Senate is as discussed in the email of Paul van Donkelaar of 29 May 2009. So don't panic folks. I am not prejudging the situation. I am just trying to figure out what to do in October when and if!!!

From: Peter Gilkey < gilkey@uoregon.edu >
Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Subject: Another Parlimentary Question
To: simonds@uoregon.edu
Cc: paulvd@uoregon.edu , gwens@uoregon.edu

Dear Paul (Simonds)

It is my understand that it is a tradition of English law that one parlimentary body can not bind its sucessor. Thus a motion which is not completely dealt with by one body does not automatically carry over to the subsequent one. Is this true under Roberts rules of order? To be specific.

a) The motion I have labeled US09/10-1 http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-1.html was handled by the 09/10 Senate and amended by that body and further consideration postponed until the October meeting of the Senate. Thus that motion is the property of the 09/10 Senate and is not under the control of the maker any more. But this is all because the 2009/10 Senate dealt with the matter.

b) The matter of the VP election is different in that it was dealt with by the 08/09 Senate. Senate President Paul van Donkelaar has ruled there was no outcome and recommended that it come before the October Senate. As the new Senate President I am choosing to place it on the agenda but I am not compelled to take this action. Furthermore when it comes before the 09/10 Senate in October it comes denovo and I should at that time call for nominations from the floor and proceed from that point. In other words. In October, no one is automatically nominated -- all nominations must be made a fresh and furthermore additional nominations are both reasonable and proper and, finally, that any one previously nominated could decline to have their name put in nomination.

Presuming my understanding is correct and following the suggestion (as opposed to the direction) of the 2008/9 Senate, I will write broadly to ask interested parties to provide "candidate's statements" in advance to be posted on the Senate Website and to be ready to provide additional brief oral testimony on the subject to the Senate. And to invite others to weigh in on the matter should they so choose.

Have I understood the parlimentary position and my obligations correctly?.

Peter B Gilkey

Note added later: obviously anyone at the October meeting of the Senate has the right to challenge the ruling of the chair. The following email was posted with the permission of Paul Simonds.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 14:17:38 -0700, "Paul E. Simonds" (simonds@uoregon.edu) wrote:

Peter, I don't find anything that quite answers your question but I will try to analyze the situation from my point of view. Any motion that was postponed (to a time certain) by a vote clearly goes to the next session of the body, even with a change of personnel. However, the VP issue is different. If the decision by the president is that there was no quorum and the evidence is clear and convincing that that was the case, then no action was taken and the whole issue needs to be raised anew. (Gwen feels she has clear and convincing evidence and the decision is certainly not mine to make. I gave my opinion and it is, I gather, up to Paul to have the final say.) In such a case, your approach makes sense. Paul (simonds@uoregon.edu)

Web page spun on 30 May 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises