Now that you’ve got the basics down about Parliamentary Procedure, what does it look like when it plays out during the National Council Session? 2017’s Proposal 1 would have amended the Constitution by lowering the number of National Board members from 25 to 15. The text in red has been added to explain what happened. Names and councils are not included and have been replaced with “Speaker.” This transcription is not word for word and the speakers’ statements have been shortened, but you should get the gist of what was said. Thanks to J. Kramer for her notes.
[Proposal 1 was introduced and eleven questions about it were answered. The Main Motion was then made by the Chair to amend Article X, Section 2 of the Constitution of Girl Scouts of the USA by striking the number “25” and inserting the number “15.” A second is not necessary in this case because according to Robert’s Rules 11th edition (pg. 36, line 15), a motion made by a board or a committee has been directed and approved by a majority vote of that group. Debate was opened for the Main Motion.]
Speaker: I would like to make an amendment from 25 to 21. [A Subsidiary Motion to Amend requires a majority to pass.]
Chair: Is there a second? Yes. It has been moved and properly seconded.
Speaker who made the motion: There were several comments, so to split the difference, I went with 21.
Chair: Any further debate? Move to debate. This will require a majority vote. The question is the amendment as appeared previously on the screen.
Results: Yes – 50.7%; 521 | No – 49.3%; 507 | Total votes – 1,028 Motion to Amend Passed
Chair: Proposal is amended. Debate on proposal as amended.
[A speaker suggested another amendment and was told that the proposal can now not be amended. There cannot be more than two amendments on the table. The two amendments were the original Proposal to Amend the Constitution and the Motion to Amend the Proposal from 15 to 21.]
Speaker: I make a motion to indefinitely postpone voting on proposal 1. [Motion was seconded. A Subsidiary motion made to Postpone Indefinitely would kill the Main Motion (to amend the Constitution) plus a Motion to Reconsider cannot be made for the rest of the session if a Motion to Postpone Indefinitely passes. It requires a majority vote to pass.]
Chair: This would kill debate on this.
Speaker who made the motion: I apologize for this. I do not feel that this national board has provided specific information on why this will be beneficial to our organization.
[Debate on postponing indefinitely was opened.]
Speaker: I am against postponing. I support the recommendation of our Board. I have served on our council’s board which has 24 members and I have seen how the size of a large board can be difficult in meeting a quorum when members do not attend and how difficult it can be. [At this point, speakers who are pro and con should take turns but that cannot always be the case.]
Speaker: In postponing indefinitely, I disagree through my experience on several boards I have seen that when there is fewer people that there is a better chance to engage in discussion and reach decisions more efficiently.
Speaker: If we vote to postpone indefinitely, does the board have the right to make a decision without our input? [Point of Information]
National Board Member: Absolutely not.
Speaker: I agree with the speaker that there was not enough information given in the explanation for why we were reducing the size. GS is an incredibly large group and I don’t believe getting a smaller board will represent us.
Speaker: I agree with postponing the issue. I am a board member at my council. We need diversity. We are supposed to be diverse and pluralistic. Reducing the board, reduces our diversity. The needs of our large and diverse nation need to not only be met by the east coast and the big cities, we need representation from Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and Hawaii and other states with no representation. People have been put forth and have not been accepted.
Speaker: You have not explained why you have wanted to make the board smaller, has there been problems meeting the quorum? [Point of Information]
National Board Member: There have not been issues with having a quorum. It is more of deliberating and we take our issues very seriously. When you have a group of 30 people discussing issues who all have voices, it can be very time consuming to come to agreements on the smaller the group the more opportunities there are for people to contribute. Reducing the board will help us to be more effective.
Speaker: I am a board member and I rise to speak against us postponing indefinitely. I agree with the original amendment.
Speaker: I am for postponing. I don’t believe that there was sufficient debate before the first amendment.
Speaker: I am against indefinite postponement. I would ask GS to think about the promise and law and think about all of the work that has gone into these proposals. You are slowing down the work that has gone into our organization by three years. You are are stopping what they have asked us to do that they have determined will have them to do their job more effectively.
Speaker: I move the previous question. [Move the Previous Question is a Subsidiary motion which would stop discussion on the Motion to Postpone Indefinitely and go straight to a vote. Move the Previous Question needs a ⅔ majority vote to pass.]
Chair: Is there a second? Moved and seconded? Vote on ending debate.
Results: Yes – 89%; 918 | No – 11%; 114 | Total votes – 1,032 Previous Question Passed
[Since the Previous Question motion passed, an immediate vote was taken on the Motion to Postpone Indefinitely.]
Results: Yes – 26.7%; 278 | No – 73.3%; 763 | Total votes – 1,041 Motion to Postpone Indefinitely Failed
Speaker: My understanding is now that we have an amended proposal that it is a new proposal and that it could be amended. [Parliamentary inquiry]
Chair: Robert’s Rules of Order Page 151. We have inserted 21 in the place of 15.
Speaker: Can we reconsider the amendment? [Parliamentary inquiry]
Chair: Would you object to the parliamentarian responding?
Speaker: Not at all.
Parliamentarian: Yes. Someone who voted for the 21 amendment has to to make a motion to reconsider. [A Motion to Reconsider is one that Brings a Question Again Before the Assembly]
Chair: Is there anyone who wants to make a motion to reconsider? Is there a second? Seconded. Motion accepted.
[Debate on the Motion to Reconsider began.]
Speaker: I wish for it to be reconsidered from 20 to 25.
Chair: You can only move for reconsideration. [I can’t tell if the person wanted to make a Motion to Amend the Proposal to reflect a range from 20 to 25.]
Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion to reconsider?
Speaker: I agree that we should reconsider because the number of members does not show the diversity of our girls. I think that a reduction in members does not hurt our girls.
Chair: Are you ready to vote? In favor of motion to reconsider. [If this passes, another vote on the Motion to Amend to change the proposal’s number from 15 to 21 would be retaken.]
Results: Yes – 56.8%; 570 | No – 43.2%; 433 | Total votes – 1,003 Motion to Reconsider Passed
Chair: We will now resume debate on the original proposal. [A Point of Order should have been made because (after debate), another vote on the previous Motion to Amend the proposal from 15 to 21 should have been taken at this time, and not reverse the decision). But business was carried out so this cannot be revisited.]
Speaker: Madame Chair, I call the question. [Debate will end if passed.]
Chair: Moved and seconded.
Speaker: Point of information. Can we have clarification on the process of what is happening please?
Chair: We had a motion to reconsider the amendment to the original proposal which struck 15 and inserted 21, which was reconsidered. Vote to Move the previous question. [⅔ majority vote required to pass]
Results: Yes – 72.4%; 733 | No – 27.6%; 280 | Total votes – 1,013 Move the Previous Question Passed
Chair: Move to vote on Proposal as originally presented which requires a ⅔ majority vote.
Results: Yes – 51.7%; 537 | No – 48.3%; 501 | Total votes – 1,038 Proposal Failed [The number of National Board members in the Constitution remains at 25.]