Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management
q wrote: > On 1 Nov 2008, at 05:19, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> I resolve this motion: >> >> APPROVE: >> BobTHJ - 2399 chits >> Taral - 2224 chits >> >> DISAPPROVE: >> woggle - 639 chits >> >> The motion is approved. I make the changes as outlined above. > > > THE RBOA IS NOW A MOUSETRAP. > > Get out while you still can. How so? Only the Treasurer is currently obligated by the PMA, and amending the PMA requires consent of the RBoA (which, per RBoA clause 7, is without 3 objections - same as amending the RBoA directly).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management
On 1 Nov 2008, at 05:19, Roger Hicks wrote: I resolve this motion: APPROVE: BobTHJ - 2399 chits Taral - 2224 chits DISAPPROVE: woggle - 639 chits The motion is approved. I make the changes as outlined above. THE RBOA IS NOW A MOUSETRAP. Get out while you still can. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:34, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I initiate the following Bank Motion:
>> {
>> The RBoA agrees to the Portfolio Management Agreement.
>> }
>
> Disapprove. There's absolutely no good reason for this to be a
> separate contract between the RBoA and the Treasurer; it could just as
> easily be a new clause in the RBoA, one which would be subject to
> better oversight since the RBoA itself can't amend this new contract.
>
The reason is to prevent non-Bankers from objecting to this change
(through the Without 3 objections mechanism). PBA Comrades who do not
participate in the RBoA have an interest in shooting down anything
which would increase the value of the RBoA at the expense of the PBA.
BobTHJ
