D. Moved McNally:
That the Board of Education of SD61 Greater Victoria write a letter to the Premier of British Columbia urging the Premier to abandon the Province’s appeal of the ruling of Justice Griffin in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 121, Date: 20140127, Docket L021662, Registry: Vancouver.
Rationale: This government’s legislation on this issue has been found to be unconstitutional twice now. The BC Liberal government introduced Bill 28 in 2002, unilaterally striking class size and classroom composition from the teachers’ collective agreement. After a long court battle betwen the Province and the BCTF, in 2011 Justice Susan Griffin ruled Bill 28 unconstitutional and allowed a year to remedy the issue. The province instead introduced Bill 22, which Justice Griffin described as “virtually identical.” Her ruling of January 27, 2014 is the second time this government has been found to be acting unconstitutionally. It’s past time for a remedy and time for the Province to comply with the latest ruling: restore collective agreement provisions stripped in 2002, and pay $2 million in damages to the BCTF, plus court costs.This government has taken at least – at the very least – $230 million from public education every year since 2002. Imagine what Boards could have done with that.
- Nohr: I have a better motion coming forward to the next meeting. It states the needs positively.
Motion to Amend, a Robert’s Rules side trip: “The motion to amend is perhaps the single most-used of the subsidiary motions allowed by Robert’s Rules. You use this motion when you want to change the wording of the motion under consideration. You can use it to make a good idea better or a bad idea more palatable.”
“The basis for discussion is a formal motion. The motion is put forward of being ‘moved’ by a voting member of the assembly to focus discussion…. Once a motion has been put ‘on the floor’ for discussion, debate must focus on the substance of the motion. All other discussion is out of order and not allowed. A main motion may not be introduced if there is any other motion on the floor.”
- Horsman: I should not have accepted this motion [from McNally].
- McNally: There is no problem with accepting motions from the floor. The District Bylaw Notices of Motion says motions “should” be submitted whenever possible two days in advance, not “must”. To intrude on a motion on the floor with another motion is not right process. There is a motion on the floor and it needs to be dealt with. Speak to the motion on the floor.
McEvoy left at this point, leaving no quorum. Horsman asked McEvoy to return. The speakers’ list fell apart and minor chaos ensued with the result being a motion to table this motion to the Board meeting on February 17th, which carried. [Pointless now: Check Orcherton and Nohr’s motions on the agenda for OPPS February11th.]
More Robert’s Rules on motions from the floor: See Chapter Six American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and Robert’s Rules for Dummies, p 80. As well, SD61 Bylaw 9368 states:” In all meetings of the Board of Trustees, procedures shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, except where provisions of the bylaws of the Board or the Schools Act may conflict, in which case the latter shall prevail.” “Should” is not prescriptive, so no Bylaw conflicts, and the School Act does not deal with this issue. If the majority of this Board wants to prohibit motions from the floor in some standard way then Bylaw 9250.2 needs to be changed. That’s obviously not practical however, as business via motion needs to be allowed to come from the floor.
9. Adjournment: 9:30
February 11, 2014 Tuesday 7:30 pm, Board Room: Operations Policy and Planning Standing Committee
February 17, 2014 Monday 7:30 pm , Board Room: Board Meeting
February 18, 2014 Tuesday 7 pm Sundance K-5 gym
re possible school closure
February 19, 2014 Wednesday 7 pm: Public budget meeting: SJ Willis