Trailering driven entries

On the risk of getting this in the wrong forum, I wish to comment on the controversy created when the AGM approved the trailering of cars entered in the driven classes at concours. It certainly appears that the issue has been resolved for 2008. It can be reconsidered at the 2009 AGM. If one takes either position on this issue it has given rise to an issue which relates to governance of JCNA. The 2/3 requirement for a Rule change to be effective in the current year recognizes that there are potential entrants who are making plans for their participation in the current year and they deserve time to adjust unless the subject is to correct a significant ommission or error in the Rules. Such instances should be covered in the Agenda for the AGM, distributed in advance so Clubs can take positions and instruct their delegates (or proxy holders). On the other hand, it is important to retain the ability to propose and vote on amendments from the floor. These, of course, precede the vote on the proposition. Apparently the delegates can propose amendments which are not "germane" or offer substitute proposals, but this is getting into the guts of Robert's Rules of Order and presuppose a level of I don't have and I suppose many others don't either. (I also wonder if the definition of germane really works under these circumstances.)

Therefore, I believe that the By-Laws should be revised to provide that mp acceleration of effective date of Rule changes (only) should be permitted unless the proposal and proposed amendments are included in the Agenda. Further, that the President shall make a determination whether an amendment from the floor represents a "material" change to the original proposal and that determination shall be automatically appealed to the Parliamentarian, whose decision is final. This appeal will automatically trigger a determination whether the amendment is gemane, dilatory, etc. If it is ruled material and passes other tests', on passage it will be incorporated in the motion and implementation in the current year will be prohibite. The proposal, as amended and passed will take effect in the following year. This does not prohibit amendments from the floow. It would only prohibit proposals which have been altered by a "material" amendent being effective in the current year. This suggestion does not seek to replace or deviate from Robert's Rules. It is an additional level involving the application of experience (President) and constuction (parliamentarian) under unique circumstances and I believe the By-laws can appropriately contain such a requirement.

This is a lot of verbiage for a relatively simple proposal. I do believe it improves governance for Rules changes. Persons trained in these matters can probably draft this with greater simplicity and clarity.