good for her
If she wins, won’t that prove the board right? If she wins then clearly students do not need an advisory seat on the board, because they can run in open elections.
Not necessarily. It proves only what we already know - that they can run, that they may or may not win, and that any time no student wins a board seat, the views and interests of students risk going unrepresented until the next board elections.
It remains a valid position that the interests of students are sufficiently unique, sufficiently different from those of the broader community, and sufficiently closely tied to the school’s governance, that a position specifically for students would be appropriate.
I’ve got $5 says that the first item on the next board agenda is voting in an age limit on board nominees. Any takers? Anyone?
One of finest gifts of childhood innocence is not knowing about “motions to close debate.”
Poor kid just looks like she just bubbling over with bright ideas, too (just like I was when I was involved in politics as a kid). She may win, but one night there not going to sit and listen, and “a motion to close debate” will be brought to floor and seconded. They have to stop talking about what would be nice to do, and vote to act on doing something now. Regularly, something at they don’t want to do.
And the kid start becoming an adult, maybe a little sooner than they wanted.
Sounds like one of those student positions that are more often sought by “Tiger Mom” coached resume stuffers…
…than one of the students that may actually be interested in coming back and being a teacher some day.
If I’m understanding this correctly, it’s a school board just for one charter school. You’d think that a charter school would want student input if they were about doing what’s best for the students.
Perhaps, if that’s what charter schools were about.
she found a loophole and exploited it to her benefit…she will make a fine politician.
To close debate you still need a 2/3rds majority to concur. If she does her homework she can probably out fox most of the adults on the board who are used to doing things their own way. For example any motion to end debate has to be voted on and pass by 2/3rds majority. If she has the floor of course she can call a point of order, you can motion to end debate unless you have the floor.
“If more than one motion is pending, the motion to close
debate should specify the pending motions to which it applies.
For example, suppose a main motion, an amendment, and an
amendment to that amendment are all pending. If the proposer
of the motion to close debate wishes it to apply to both the
amendment and the secondary amendment, but not to the main
motion, this qualification should be stated. If the motion is to
apply to all pending motions, this should be stated. If the motion
to close debate on all pending motions is adopted, an immediate
vote must be taken on the amendment to the amendment, then
on the amendment, and then on the main motion. The motion
to close debate may be applied only to successive pending motions
and must include the immediately pending motion.
Subsidiary”
Etc…
Basically
Rules Governing the Motion
to Close Debate
- Cannot interrupt a speaker
- Requires a second
- Is not debatable
- Cannot be amended
- Requires a two-thirds vote because it prevents or cuts
off debate - Takes precedence over all subsidiary motions except
to postpone temporarily - Applies to debatable motions only
- Can have no motion applied to it except the motion
to withdraw
So I don’t see how this procedural rule soured you so much.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
