Andrew Amelang
Chair
The motion is problematic, but it's not out of order. The problem created is that it only addresses the deadline of 'establish', and does not address the clunky 'may not be received' part (which Anastasia did a nice job of highlighting some problems with above). So we could pass this motion and change the deadline for 'establishment', and would still be left with a potential argument about how to handle the 'may be received' part of the policy. But we're always free to change some deadline in the policy; the question will then be how do we apply that change to these facts?
I had more drafted re how we might handle that conversation about the application deadline when/if the motion passes, but it has come to my attention that a second motion is being workshopped now, which is likely to be made soon and will thereby moot what I was going to say. Stay tuned.
I had more drafted re how we might handle that conversation about the application deadline when/if the motion passes, but it has come to my attention that a second motion is being workshopped now, which is likely to be made soon and will thereby moot what I was going to say. Stay tuned.