My earlier posting of a proposal re. effective year for competition changes was based on the concern raised over the driven driven issue passed at the last AGM. It seems to me that the problem is not the merits of the findings but the fact that it was a "material" change in a proposal made effective before there was an opportunity for widespread knowledge of or reaction by the member clubs, particularly give the large number of proxies at the meeting. As a layman and non-lawyer I must accept that the amendment was not germane but I don't understand why and I wonder if it is such an open and shut case that all parliamentarians would so rule. In any event it is unreasonable to think that even a majority of the delegates are conversant enough with Roberts Rule to have referred it. Answer-all items introduced would be automatically referred to the parliamentarian. This doesn't seem reasonable to me. Of course this whole line of reasoning assumes that matters are detailed in the agenda/call to meeting and that material changes should not be accepted for the following season. Critical changes should have previously been identified and covered in the agenda.
Regarding proxies-these are a medium for representation of clubs which, for whatever reason, are unable to have in-person representation. I would not like to see them disenfranchised. The problem with proxies is that grantors do not necessarilly instruct holders how to vote and holders do not necessarilly report how they voted to the grantors. This not a By-Law problem as far as I am concerned but rather a matter of common courtesy.
The AGM is a deliberative body. Amendments from the floor should not be prohibited oor subjected to restrictions other than those in the Rules. Presumably, discussion is a vital element in explaining and refining proposals.