Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T.K. Allen who wrote (7555)	2/23/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: SE	Respond to of 10368

Tod, Needless to say, but I will anyway, thank you for looking into this further. I know you are busy now and appreciate the time you put in. I do hope that AB&G gets agressive on the bingo hall front in order to off-set the difficulty they will be up against if VGM's are outlawed. Further, they need to start examining alternative plans agressively if they are outlawed. What other states allow VGM's and what will it take to expand to those states. I suggest they start the expansion process into other states, now. I am ever hopeful that SC will keep the games, but it is not up to us. I would also hope that JTO can clarify what it is he meant. I may have misquoted him, but I do not think so. It is entirely possible that he was mistaken. Maybe he will contact Harrison or Mims and up-date us as to his misunderstanding or his mistake. Again, thanks. -Scott

To: T.K. Allen who wrote (7555)	3/6/1998 11:21:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

I finally received a response from the American Institute of Parliamentarians regarding the issue of bill sponsorship. Following is their response which I received yesterday: Dear Mr. Allen-- Your letter with two questions was just forwarded to me. Unfortunately, I have been out of state (teaching parliamentary procedure in another state) and just received the letter. As to my background, I am an attorney in Greensboro, NC, and one of only several attorneys in the country with designations as a Certified Professional Parliamentarian and a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. I have both served as parliamentarian as well as taught parliamentary procedure from coast to coast (as well as Puerto Rico). My clients include some of the largest professional associations and trade unions in the country. Your question does not truly rest on parliamentary principles, but is instead governed by the adopted rules of the Senate and House of the South Carolina general assembly. (Most state assemblies still adopt their own rules and then supplement them by adopting a parliamentary procedure manual or the rules of the U.S. Senate or House as additional authority.) Any rule that restricts amendments only to sponsors of a bill would be a specific rule of the Senate. Typically, (and I am familiar with many states on such matters), any member of the assembly may make amendments to proposed legislation, whether or not they are sponsors. The customary practice is that sponsors do support the legislation. In North Carolina, sponsors are also known as "introducers" and the first name listed on the bill is the principal sponsor who will work with other sponsors in attempting to pass the bill. Sponsors may not have actually worked on the legislation prior to its introduction. Some states allow sponsors to sign onto legislation within a certain time limit of its introduction. Amendments that are adopted contrary to the wishes of sponsors can sometimes lead to sponsors asking that their names be removed from the legislation. Good luck with your legislative activities. Jim Slaughter Certified Professional Parliamentarian Professional Registered Parliamentarian 336-273-1797 (w) 336-282-3040 (h) web site: members.aol.com; I have read every one of the Senate rules published on the South Carolina website (http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/senrule.htm). There is no rule that limits amendments to only sponsors. Therefore, there is no reason an opponent of bill 947 would sign on as a sponsor. JTO was wrong in his statement that "only bill sponsors can amend bills." It seems to me that he was trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. I believe he was doing the same thing in the conference call when he stated that AB&G has 14 bingo halls (same as they ended 1996 with) but that "we are making more money from 14 halls than we were with 20 halls". That bothers me and makes me suspicious of his other statements. On a related note, the recent news articles support my conclusion that VGM survival in the Senate is a matter of one or two votes with apparently Senators Elliot and Rankin being the key "fence-sitters". It is also interesting to note that apparently the pro-VGM Senators are advocating sending the issue to a state-wide vote in November (as opposed to proposing taxes and regulations in this session). This gives AB&G three hurdles to cross before the weight can truly be lifted from their shoulders: 1) Survive the legislative effort to ban VGMs. 2) Win the "illegal lottery" case pending in the SC Supreme Court. 3) Win a state-wide referendum on the issue in November. Failure in any one of these would be a serious blow to AB&G. TKA