[arin-discuss] Fwd: [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.10: CHANGES TO CANDIDATE SPEECHES

[Rob Seastrom]

Scott Morris <swm at emanon.com> writes:

> So I feel that I missed some of the fun along the way.  Exactly how much
> time was spent with these unsolicited endorsements???  I mean, this didn¹t
> turn into a filibuster, did it?  If so, there are concepts within Roberts¹
> Rules that would assist with that.

A couple of tens of seconds, all told, across all endorsements.  This
is much ado about nothing.

> But the suggestion as it is written doesn¹t seem to be an appropriate
> solution.  If someone wants to talk about off-topic things, no matter how
> detailed the rules, they¹ll always find some way to do so.  And if people
> are that put out by it, then the most appropriate action is to simply not
> vote for the people that they like (although that brings about a whole
> reverse-psychology idea too!).

Precisely so.

> The process doesn¹t appear to be broken.  Just a few individuals and their
> use of it.

Actually, I disagree.  I'm opposed to any suggestion that a candidate
ought to be restricted from talking about whatever he or she cares to
during their stump speech.  The electorate is entirely capable of
deciding whether a candidate's remarks are appropriate and acting
accordingly.

I couple of years ago I was standing for re-election but had the Chair
give my statement instead of delivering it personally since I was
being held against my will at Baylor University Medical Center by an
angry gall bladder.  Those who were in attendance will recall that I
made it back to the meeting a day and a half later, fortunately in
time to make some comments on 2012-7.  Had I returned a little earlier
and been able to make my speech personally I would have thanked
everyone for the good wishes and texts.  Had we been stuck with
pre-made videos or compelled to adhere to a vetted speech, expressing
such a sentiment would have been impossible or out of line.

-r