2020 NCS: Proposal 4 Cannot Come First

Did you know that in addition to amending the Standing Rules, you can also amend the agenda to reorder proposals?  Yes, you can!

There’s talk out there that there may be an attempt to hear Proposal 4 (Membership Dues Increase Restriction) first.  You don’t want to do that, and here’s why:

Proposal 4 is an amendment to the Credentials section of the Blue Book.  Proposal 2 is a Constitutional amendment.  The language in the Credentials section cannot override the Constitution.  The only thing that can override the Constitution is the Congressional Charter, and only Congress can amend it.

So let’s say Proposal 4 is heard first and there’s all sorts of discussion and time spent on it and it passes.  Then when Proposal 2 comes around, it’s very possible that its result will render Proposal 4’s result void.

Do what now?  How can Proposal 2 void Proposal 4 if 4 passes first?  Well, if Proposal 2 is amended to state that the National Council is the ONLY one with authority over membership dues in the Constitution, then it doesn’t matter what’s in the Credentials section.   The Constitution supersedes the Credentials.  So why waste all of that time and energy on Proposal 4 when there’s a real chance it could be all for naught?  Proposal 2 needs to be decided upon first. 

Why would someone want to hear Proposal 4 first?  Well, the National Board and GSUSA claim in their membership dues FAQ that “[i]f Proposal 2 does not pass but Proposal 4 does, the National Board (as well as the National Council) could still act on dues under the general language of the Constitution but without any required procedures for input and communication, and Proposal 4 would put an outer limit on the amount on the amount the National Board could raise dues in a triennium without seeking National Council approval.”

So let’s just say in this scenario Proposal 4 passes, and when Proposal 2 is heard, the National Board could argue that since it has authority anyway, how about National Delegates just make it OFFICIAL by passing Proposal 2, because according to it, “Without the specific language added by Proposal 2, there could also be continued questions and disagreement over Constitutional language on who sets dues, which could lead to future disputes or litigations.”

So hearing Proposal 4 first is a backdoor to try to get Proposal 2 passed as written giving both the National Council and the National Board authority.

What if Proposal 3 is heard first (I have no idea why someone would want to do this but let’s go with it)?   Well, it might become moot too depending on the outcome of Proposal 2, so why waste your time?  And just like with Proposal 4, it’s another backdoor.  If it passes (it only needs a majority) because National Delegates think they’re hedging their bets because they don’t know what the outcome of Proposal 2 OR 4 will be, then the National Board will take it and run with it and again argue that Proposal 2 should be passed as written.

Really when it comes down to it, Proposal 2 should be heard first, then 4, and THEN 3.  That makes the most sense.  At least to me.

All that said, Proposal 2 passing as amended to state that the National Council should be the ONLY one with the authority will settle this once and for all.  I’ve got seven reasons for it if you haven’t read them yet.