The following is an opinion of Gloette Hess, Professional Registered Parliamentarian.

OPINION

Issue:
At the AGM, a modification to Chapter II, Page 1, Section 1, Item 6 of the Concours Rules was proposed by the Jaguar Concours Rules Committee (ÔÇ£JCRCÔÇØ), and a motion to approve the JCRCÔÇÖs proposed rules change was made and seconded. During the discussion on the motion, a motion to amend the proposal was made and seconded that would effectively allow Driven Division to trailer cars to JCNA car shows on the same basis as Championship Division and Special Division cars. A vote was taken on the motion to amend the original motion, which passed by a majority vote. Further discussion was entertained on the amended motion, and a vote was then taken on the motion as amended. The amended motion passed by a majority vote. As required by the By-laws, a separate motion was made to implement the amended rule for the 2008 competition year, and that motion passed by a 2/3 majority as required by the By-laws.

After the meeting, when the general membership heard of the results of the vote, some members were outraged that the matter was even brought up to be voted on. A number of members have challenged the action by the AGM and raised various issues including whether the amendment was ÔÇ£germaneÔÇØ to the original motion that had been considered.

Parliamentarian's Ruling

The JCNA Board has had an independent Parliamentarian review the JCNA Bylaws, the minutes from the 2008 AGM and a statement by the JCRC. The Board and JCRC Chair, Dick Cavicke, agreed to abide by the ruling, no matter which way it came down. The Parliamentarian arrived at the following findings:

Facts:
The rules change was considered by the delegates and voting members of the assembly and votes were taken to amend the motion that was presented, and the amendment was adopted by a vote of 95 to 40 and the entire amended rule was adopted by 116 votes. The assembly then adopted a motion (only 3 votes against) to implement the rule for the 2008 competition year.

Opinion:
The amendment to amendment was not germane, [closely or significantly related to the issue] but the correct procedure would have been to present the entire rule (amendment) as a substitute motion. The assembly had the right to object to the germaneness of the amendment to the amendment when the subject was brought to the floor. However, the Point of Order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. In other words you may not go home and study the results of the annual meeting and then decide the amendment was not germane. No Point of Order was raised at the meeting and it is too late to protest the actions of the AGM.

The JCNA Bylaws, Article IV Section 10. Clearly state that ÔÇ£Section 10. Changes Reserved to Meetings. No competition rules change shall take effect unless approved by majority vote at a meeting as defined in Article IV, Section 1 and Section 3. Any such changes shall take effect in the season following enactment unless specifically approved by the delegates by a 2/3 majority. (Rev. 2004 AGM)

The delegates followed the bylaws and adopted the amendments. There may have been mistakes made along the way, but there is nothing in the JCNA bylaws that say the Board or the membership may ÔÇ£set the rule asideÔÇØ the action of the AGM. The rule should stand.

Gloette L. Hess
Professional Registered Parliamentarian
Member National Association of Parliamentarians

The Parliamentarian's ruling was sent to JCRC Chair, Dick Cavicke, who responded as follows:
ÔÇ£I will inform all of the Chief Judges and tell them that:
- we/they are obliged to comply with the approved rule change for the 2008 competitive year and
- JCRC will solicit input, review the criteria by which Entries qualify for Driven Division and, if warranted, propose trailering and related rule changes at the 2009 AGM.ÔÇØ

I know many of you want the Board to ÔÇ£just change things back to the way they wereÔÇØ but the bylaws do not allow for that. If the Board were to make such a change, it would put future votes at AGM's in jeopardy and challenge the bylaws themselves.

Steve Kennedy
President, JCNA

Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 14:08

I actually made 8 points. I could post them individually, if you prefer. ;-)

Steve W. is a good guy.
BoD should issue statement reconfirming intent of Driven Division
Good coming from this episode:
1. Proxy reform needed.
2. Better attendance at future AGMs.
3. Rule needed that last minute rule changes and substantive amendments should not be implemented in the current event year.
4. Parliamentarian needed at future AGMs.
5. RONR will be better understood and implemented at future AGMs.
6. If something doesn't seem to be being done right, there's a good chance it isn't. Don't accept it; investigate.

For a more in-depth explanation of any of those items, see the l-o-o-o-o-o-ng post.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 07:47

Mark,

You really should figure out how to make posts that are concise and to the point. Quite frankly, I don't even read your posts when like this one, they are over seventeen hundred words.

Can you give us the Reader's Digest version?

Thanks!

Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 02:43

Steve,

I was bandying your good name about only because I was under the impression that you were the acting parliamentarian, as posted here in one of the threads. If I'm incorrect, that should be the bandied name. In any case, I bandy with no malice, in fact, rereading my post, I realize that I left out a critical negative. I stated, "The problem was that the acting parliamentarian ... supported the amendment to the amendment, and did not object. I'm not suggesting a willful subversion of RONR, because I'm sure he, as parliamentarian, is allowed to object without being asked." I meant to say "I'm not suggesting a willful subversion of RONR, because I'm *not* sure he, as parliamentarian, is allowed to object without being asked." In all meetings I've attended where a parliamentarian was present, I've never seen them offer an opinion without being asked. Apologies for the misstatement.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I consider you one of the hardest working JCNA members in the organization. In the "good guy" category, especially as it relates to Jaguar and JCNA, I put you at or very near the top. I do not believe for a moment that there was anything but the best of intentions behind the trailering amendment. In fact, it seems to me that everyone behind the trailering amendment perceived the intentions to be so good and an end result so beneficial, that they looked for means to achieve that end, even if that meant convincing themselves that it was germane to transmogrify the original amendment (to require judges to observe judged entries being driven onto the concours field), into one that eliminated the requirement that Driven Division entries be driven to concours. None of you should be faulted for intending to increase concours participation. What was needed was time for reaction and feedback from the membership prior to implementation. I'm sure the reaction by "drivers" was totally unexpected.

While the rule can not be changed until the next AGM, unless a special session is called, I did write you directly a while back under the subject of "The Fourth Way," suggesting what I considered to be a workable solution until the question can be revisited. I didn't receive a response, so I'm not sure you received it. Some parts of it have already been done, but I'll reiterate the my most important suggestion here. I recommended that...

----------------------------------
The Board of Directors issue a joint statement explaining that there was a good-faith effort made at the 2008 AGM to increase participation at Concours d'Elegance by permitting trailering in all divisions. However, in retrospect, this was a question that should have been referred to the Jaguar Concours Rules Committee for review and to solicit comments from the JCNA membership prior to implementation. In addition, there was ... a procedural error committed when this amendment was attached to a Jaguar Concours Rules Committee proposal that judges ensure that all judged Jaguars be driven into position. Robert's Rules of Order require that amendments be germane to the question at hand. [Gloette Hess, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, has ruled that it was not.]

The amendment was voted on and passed, and subsequently the amended rule (Chapter II, Section A, Subsection 1, Rule 6) passed with a 2/3rds majority required for immediate implementation.

Because of the controversy surrounding the rule and the [ruling] concerning the propriety of the trailering amendment, the [JCNA Board of Directors] asks that for the 2008 season or until new guidelines are established, JCNA Driven Division competitors voluntarily honor the spirit of Driven Division and not trailer their Driven Division entries to Concours d'Elegance unless absolutely necessary (e.g. you have another Jaguar entered in the same event and that's the only way you'll get the Driven Division car there).

In the meantime, the Board of Directors pledges to resolve this matter as expeditiously as possible ... examining the possibility of holding a special general meeting, per the JCNA By-Laws, to re-examine the Driven Division trailering question. We have already directed the Jaguar Concours Rules Committee to study the issue, request input from JCNA members and present a comprehensive Driven Division trailering rule either at a 2008 special meeting or the 2009 Annual General Meeting.
----------------------------------

Although the initial negative reaction has died down, I still feel that such a statement from the BoD would go a long way to ameliorating the bad feelings the majority of Driven Division competitors who have spoken up here.

There is a lot of potential good that can come out of this incident. It won't mean a lot to the rank and file, but it will benefit the governance of JCNA in the long run.

1. Over the next year, there will be a thorough re-examination of the proxy voting system and likely some good recommendations made so that an inordinate amount of power is not concentrated in a few hands. I have some ideas on this and would like to take the lead in forming, or see formed, a By-Laws committee, along the lines of the JCRC, to distill what I expect will be a lot of proposals on this subject. In this instance, the BLC would be charged with distilling the best ideas from the proposals and coming up with a system that encourages participation of all clubs, allows for some representation for absent clubs, yet prevents the excessive accumulation of votes in a few hands.

2. A number of clubs, particularly those with members who disagree with the new rule, will make a point to attend the next AGM or at least let their proxy carriers know where they stand on the issues.

3. I expect there will be a move to add something to the By-Laws such that last-minute motions and substantive amendments can not take effect in the current sanctioned-event season unless extraordinary circumstances warrant it. In the case of the trailering rule, I don't think the vast majority of delegates present at the AGM understood how strongly many Driven Division competitors feel about the importance of driving Jaguars, although there should have been some inkling based on the vehement objections of the JCRC members and others present. This isn't the first time the AGM delegates have overlooked a critical factor. As former (?) slalom chair, you'll probably remember this better than I. A few years ago, a motion was introduced at the AGM that only allowed Jaguars with tires of a treadware rating higher than 80 to compete in the stock slalom classes. It passed with the requisite 2/3rds vote to be implemented that year. Only one problem -- unbeknownst to anyone present, Jaguar had a special edition XK8 outfitted with tires with a treadwear rating of 80. The rule was changed the following year, but in the interim, a stock car couldn't compete in its stock class. I think it's pretty obvious that if rules and amendments are not submitted by the deadline prior to the AGM, the membership doesn't have the opportunity to adequately review and comment on them and clubs delegating their votes don't have the opportunity to inform their proxy holder how they want him or her to vote. I'd propose that a post-deadline rule or substantive amendment could be voted on and passed, but there wouldn't be an opportunity for a supermajority vote to implement it for the current event season. That allows time for review and If there are serious objections, they could be rectified at the next AGM before the rule is implemented.

4. We will no longer attempt to save a little money by not employing a parliamentarian.

5. A lot more JCNA members are a lot more knowledgeable about RONR, which leads me to an interesting, but moot, rhetorical question. If someone had raised a point of order regarding the germaneness of the trailering amendment to the amendment and that point of order was incorrectly rejected by the acting parliamentarian, could the rule have been overturned? Hmmmm.

And, last but most important...

6. The lesson everyone should learn from this experience is that if something doesn't seem right, prima facie, there's a good chance it isn't. Looking at it logically, the purpose of Robert's Rules of Order is to foster robust, yet orderly debate. If a member of a deliberative body could use the seemingly innocuous clarification of a rule as the basis for a dramatic change to the purpose, intent, or scope of that rule, it would create chaos. Any delegate could use any tenuously related opening to advance an agenda. Amendments, amendments to amendments, and amendments to those amendments would be introduced faster than they could be handled and could be used as weapons to effectively filibuster the organization's business. Delegates with legitimate amendments would be unwilling to introduce them for fear of opening the floodgates and ending up with something completely different from what they intended. To see the chilling effect such an interpretation would have on debate, you need look no further than our own AGM. I have it on good authority that the presenters of the original amendment considered pulling it from the agenda when they learned, in the hours prior to the AGM, that there was a plan to use the original amendment as a springboard to introduce the trailering amendment. Does it make sense that RONR, used for so long and honed through so many revisions, would permit an abuse so antithetical to its stated purpose?

So whether you find yourself at a local PTA meeting, at an AGM, in the halls of Congress, or anywhere where RONR are the procedural rules of the assembly, the solution to something that just doesn't seem right, is to raise a point of order and ask for a ruling from the parliamentarian. PoOs take precedence over all other parliamentary devices, so debate is suspended until a decision is rendered. If you are overruled, but later discover that you are correct, I'm confident you could have the rule annulled, as it appears would have been the case with the trailering amendment.

Thanks, Steve, for your long-time service to JCNA as board member, Slalom Chair, VP, General Council, and whatever other positions you've held.

Submitted by NE52-32043 on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 17:29

Edited on 2008-05-21 17:32:50

Since my name is being bandied about here, I think I should step in and clarify something -- When this issue came up at the AGM, I was not of the opinion that, under RRoO, the proposed amendment was not "germane". A majority of the BoD believed that the JCRC had put the matter of trailering in driven class before the Board as a "policy" issue, not as a concours "rule." As such, it appeared that the entire Paragraph 6 was before the AGM on a motion to approve the section, as amended. Thus, the motion to amend the motion to approve Section 6, as proposed by JCRC, seemed to me to be germane.

Let's remember, RRoO are procedural in nature. Procedural defects can be waived by failure to object in a timely manner, as noted by the Parliamentarian. No one raised a point of order with regard to the amendment, and it passed by more than the required simple majority. Then the amended motion passed by more than the required simple majority. And a motion was then made to apply the rule in the current year, which also passed by the required super-majority (2/3). At no time during consideration of any of these motions was a point of order raised from the floor.

I assure you, in the future, it is the intention of the Board to have an independent Parliamentarian present at the AGM. Since that matter has been ruled on for this year, arguing over whether a "rule" was broken or not is meaningless, and is only a matter of semantics. Instead, I would hope that we could turn our energies to dealing with the issue through the JCRC and hopefully come up with a meaningful solution that everyone can live with going forward for submission to the 2009 AGM.

And let me make something very clear for anyone who thinks otherwise -- I had no "agenda" or ulterior motive in what occurred, other than my belief that the amendment might promote greater participation in JCNA events. And it is my firmly held belief that no one else on the Board had any ulterior motive either. As I said before, I did not "have a dog in this fight," as I rarely ever participate in JCNA concours, other than the JCC. I didn't even know this was an issue before it came to the Board from the JCRC.

Say what you will about whether the actions were correct or totally in compliance with RRoO. It's a moot issue at this point. But don't ascribe any ill-motive or bad intention to me or others on the Board. It simply is not the case.

Steve Weinstein
N.E. Reg. Dir. and G.C.

p.s. Just for the record, I did not become General Counsel until after the AGM. At this AGM, I was still Vice President. The General Counsel at the AGM was Jay Ryan. And Steve Kennedy was not the President. Dennis Eynon was President and Chairman of the meeting for RRoO purposes. Steve K. did not become President until after the close of the AGM, at which point in a special meeting of the BoD, an at-large member of the executive committe was elected and I was appointed as G.C. by the new President.

Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 01:38

William,

Thanks for the clarification. It's hair splitting and academic at this point, but the JCNA rules require that RONR be followed. Since RONR weren't followed, that one provision in the JCNA By-Laws was broken.

I wasn't implying that anyone tried anything underhanded at the AGM, overly expedient perhaps, but not underhanded.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 23:39

Mark, no JCNA rules were broken which is what I meant therefore I mispoke, I'm sorry.

There was a possible violation of Roberts Rules but as the parlimentarian said, if it wasn't raised and discussed at that time, you can't "go home and study the results of the annual meeting and then decide the amendment was not germane. No Point of Order was raised at the meeting and it is too late to protest the actions of the AGM." I'm sorry if I posted something that confused you.

No one "got away" with anything here as you are implying. This is a good rule change and I think it should stand. Sorry if you don't like it but hey, that's the way it goes sometimes, right? You can lobby to change it back and I'll lobby to keep it.

Good luck.......

Submitted by NC43-62049 on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 18:54

Edited on 2008-05-20 18:58:18

I do not think that a special meeting can be called to amend the one germane/non-germaine motion: I have doubts there would be valid quorum at such a special meeting.

I am also not so sure that this is, in fact, a burning issue amongst the JCNA membership or even concours participants generally as opposed to a (dedicated and thoughtful) sub-group of bloggers.

Rather, I believe that it is more than likely that a majority of JCNA Members are indifferent to this issue.

D. Lokun

Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 09:58

Excuse me, Mr. Jenkins. A rule clearly was broken. I'm not sure how you missed it, but Ms. Hess clearly stated "The amendment to amendment was not germane," That means that Robert's Rules of Order were violated.

The problem was that the acting parliamentarian. Steve Weinstein, supported the amendment to the amendment, and did not object. I'm not suggesting a willful subversion of RONR, because I'm sure he, as parliamentarian, is allowed to object without being asked. From what I understand from direct conversation with those present, there were questions raised about completely changing the nature of the amendment, but no one specifically raised a Point of Order about the germaneness of the amendment to the amendment.

Had JCNA had an impartial parliamentarian present, someone could have asked him or her if there was any way to stop the amendment to the amendment and he/she would have rendered an opinion and it might have happened. The problem was that no one had sufficient knowledge of RONR or a copy of it handy to challenge it.

Your argument that "No rules were broken at the AGM..." is like saying that someone who commits a crime but is not prosecuted before the Statue of Limitations runs out, hasn't broken any law. No, it just means they got away with it.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 00:40

Edited on 2008-05-19 0:47:07

Dave,

The "comments" section is irrelevant to the topic of this thread that Steve started which is summed up best here:

"The delegates followed the bylaws and adopted the amendments. There may have been mistakes made along the way, but there is nothing in the JCNA bylaws that say the Board or the membership may ÔÇ£set the rule asideÔÇØ the action of the AGM. The rule should stand."

I agree with this 100%. No rules were broken at the AGM which is confirmed by Mr. Hess.

Dave you are dead wrong when you stated that there were "voting errors" that occurred at the 2008 AGM. I don't know how many times you need to be told that there were no "voting errors" just because you don't like the way the vote came out.

So Dave, if you want to start a discussion about proposed changes (whether they be bylaws changes or rules changes) then go right ahead and do that but I think another thread would be much more appropriate.

I personally don't agree with Mr. Hess' proposals at all but I'll let you start another thread about that and we'll discuss it there, not here.

And Pascal, please stop deleting my comments. If you're going to play "moderator" and demand that I stop using words like "infantile" and "whiners" then you also must demand that Peter and others of his ilk stop using words like "nastiest" and "angriest." Peter has only been here for two months and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Submitted by coudamau@yahoo.com on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 14:31

JCNA President Steve Kennedy did not present the opinion of Gloette Hess, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, fully and accurately in his posting of 5/15/08. The unedited Opinion Section reads as follows:

Opinion:
1) The amendment to amendment was not germane.

6. Entries to be Driven to their Assigned Parking Positions / Trailering
Trailering to the Concours site is allowed in all Divisions. only for Champion and Special
Division Entries. Trailering or towing to the Concours site is NOT allowed for Entries in
Driven Division. The Chief Judge or his designees must confirm that all Entries are
driven, under their own power, to their assigned parking positions in the judging
area ÔÇô the objective is to simply prove/observe that the Entry runs. Entries not
meeting this rule are ineligible for the dayÔÇÖs Concours Competition and shall not be
judged. Entries shall not be trailered directly to their assigned parking positions and off
loaded. (2008 AGM)

The correct procedure would have been to present the entire rule (amendment) as a substitute motion to #6 (see above rule). 1990 Edition of RobertÔÇÖ Rules of Order Newly Revised pages 129 to 131.

2) The assembly had the right to object to the germaneness of the amendment to the amendment when the subject was brought to the floor. The use of the motions to Raise a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry, Raise a Point of Order, or To Appeal the decision of the chair would have tested the germaneness of the amendment.

The Point of Order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. In other words you may not go home and study the results of the annual meeting and then decide the amendment was not germane. No Point of Order was raised at the meeting and it is too late to protest the actions of the AGM. Please read these pages in 1990 Edition of RobertÔÇÖ Rules of Order Newly Revised pages 240 to 243, especially 243 on the timeliness requirement.

3) The bylaws of the Bylaws of the JCNA Article IV Section 10. Clearly state that ÔÇ£Section 10. Changes Reserved to Meetings. No competition rules change shall take effect unless approved by majority vote at a meeting as defined in Article IV, Section 1 and Section 3. Any such changes shall take effect in the season following enactment unless specifically approved by the delegates by a 2/3 majority. (Rev. 2004 AGM)

The delegates followed the bylaws and adopted the amendments to #6. There may have been mistakes made along the way, but there is nothing in your bylaws that say the Board or the membership may ÔÇ£set the rule asideÔÇØ the action of the AGM. The rule should stand.

The only way the rule may be repealed is at meeting of the AGM, or special called meeting for this purpose.

Further, Mr. Kennedy omitted the Comments Section of Ms. HessÔÇÖ opinion altogether. This section is crucial because it offers specific recommendations for avoiding (in the future) the voting errors that occurred at the 2008 AGM concerning the trailering rules change. It reads as follows:

Comments:
There are rules for the AGM that you [may] wish to consider in the future, as an example: that all rules changes will be submitted to delegates 30 days in advance of the meeting or no new business may be considered at the meeting without the approval of ?¥ affirmative vote of the assembly.

This parliamentarian understands that members of car clubs love their cars and this is a serous matter.

Gloette L. Hess
Professional Registered Parliamentarian
Member National Association of Parliamentarians

Submitted by photo@mptv.net on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 13:37

This is odd to me. I tried to get clear bra's in the " Driven Class" and was shot down so fast my head was spinning. And now people can trailer cars!!
Well it sure makes no sense at all. Lets take a class set up so people can drive these cars to shows and enjoy them,and put them on trailers. But don't let the same people drive them to the shows and protect the paint with some clear film you can't see.
I for one am glade I do not show my car any more!
Ron Avery

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 10:25

Peter,

You have been involved on these forums for what now, a total of a whole two months? You are in no position to draw conclusions about me or anyone else here for that matter.

Pascal, if you're not going to tolerate me using the words "infantile" and "whiners" does that mean it's also not acceptable for peter to accuse members here of being "nastiest" and "angriest?"

If you're going to start playing the role of "moderator" then you better start applying the rules fairly to eveyone here and not just point the finger at me.

peter was out of line here by implying that our JCNA president Steve Kennedy "misused" proxies. I took exception to that and he started with the personal attacks and flaming. That is wrong.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 01:07

Peter there is no "fact" in what you "seem" to perceive and no one here needs to be lectured by you or be subjected your flaming and personal attacks. It's unfortunate that you cannot comprehend that.

I took issue with the FACT that you implied that proxies were "misused" when you have no first hand knowledge to support that baseless accusastion. You were wrong, end of story. Your personal attacks and flaming violate the rules here, another case of you being wrong.

Submitted by coudamau@yahoo.com on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 13:26

The JCNA Board of Directors now seeks to justify its actions in the trailering rules change. However, it has ignored the sentiments of a significant portion of the general membership in an ill-advised effort to increase participation at concours events.

Participation in the Driven Class has most to do with philosophy. The very word, "Driven", has special meaning for some. It is a metaphor for all that goes into participating in an event. It symbolizes a connectedness not only to the sound and feel of the machine but to other like-minded members of the Driven Class.

This unfortunate trailering rules change is contrary to the intended spirit of Driven Class. I donÔÇÖt see how the JCNA can hope to increase participation at concours events by alienating a significant portion of its membership.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 11:39

Peter, you have no right stating a proxy was "possibly misused" and I for one do not appreciate your tone.

That is between the person who granted the proxy and the proxy holder and is none of your business.

Just because some of you don't like the result of the rule change, no good can come from continued innuendo such as this.

If you whiners want the rule changed back then do it per the proper procedures. Pointing groundless accusatory fingers is selfish, unfair and infantile and will ultimately only hurt your cause.

I for one will lobby to keep this rule change on the books because the more I think about it, the more I like it .

Submitted by kairys@cfl.rr.com on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 10:21

If you have been reading the various forum messages, several of us have said the same thing. If the Florida clubs could make Seattle (about as far as you can travel in the lower 48 (6,000 miles)), then it should not inhibit other clubs sending members. One other point, not all the extra voting is due to proxies, many clubs send on one delegate, but each club has two votes, so the rep will vote both votes even though there is only one person present.