A Blue Book Mystery of Majority

I haven’t posted much lately, but I’ve been keeping myself busy doing non-Girl Scout things. Have I mentioned that I’m studying to become a certified parliamentarian? Yes, I recently joined the National Association of Parliamentarians, and hopefully come this July, I will pass the Registered Parliamentarian exam and become an official parliamentarian. I’ve been talking about doing this for about six years now, and it’s finally time that I put my money where my mouth is and actually do this thing. Eventually, I’d like to become a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, but first things first.

I’m taking a quick break from studying to indulge my inner nerd on a topic that will probably lull most of you to sleep – our own Blue Book (BB). For some reason, I find bylaws and other governing documents fascinating to study, and our collection of governing documents called the Blue Book of Basic Documents is one of my favorites. If you’ve followed me for a while, you’ll know that I actually have a Blue Book collection dating all the way back to 1920! You might wonder what you can do with a Blue Book collection, but I’ve referred back to them quite a few times attempting to scratch an itch in my quirky curiosity. I don’t believe I’ve ever shared one of my research topics, but I figure it’s time to let you in on one. But in order to do that, you’ll have to stay awake long enough for a brief lesson in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR).

One of the most common motions in RONR is the subsidiary motion to amend. You can amend most motions, but the most common use of it is when it’s applied to a main motion. To make things more complicated, you can even apply both a primary and a secondary amendment to most motions! Even if the motion it’s being applied to requires a two-thirds majority, a motion to amend only needs a majority vote to carry. And here’s where the story starts.

In Article XVII of the GSUSA Constitution, there’s a sentence that’s always seemed curious to me. This article covers Amendments to the Constitution, and like all good governing documents, it contains instructions on how and what is necessary to amend itself:

This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at any session of the National Council, provided that the National Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, shall have deemed the proposed amendment appropriate as an amendment and provided that it shall have been included in the call of the session together with the National Board’s recommendation thereon. An amendment to an amendment properly before any session of the National Council may be made by a majority vote of those present and voting in accordance with the rules governing the session, provided the proposed amendment thereto does not alter the intent or increase the scope of the amendment acted upon by the National Board of Directors.

I’ve always wondered why the last sentence about an amendment to an amendment is included because it pretty much summarizes the default standard of a motion to amend in RONR. Primary and secondary amendments must be germane and within scope to be in order, and like I mentioned earlier, motions to amend only require a majority. And I note that secondary amendments aren’t mentioned here either.

So this got me wondering – when was this seemingly redundant sentence added to the Constitution? And why?

My first stop when researching questions such as this is the 1958 BB, because the entire Blue Book was overhauled at the 1957 National Council Session (NCS) to the version we are familiar with today. Here’s how the 1958 BB (Article XVI) reads:

This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at any meeting of the National Council; provided that the Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, shall have deemed the proposed amendment appropriate as an amendment and provided that it shall have been included in the call of the meeting together with the Board’s recommendation thereon. An amendment to an amendment properly before any meeting of the National Council may be made by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting in accordance with the rules governing the meeting, provided the proposed amendment thereto does not alter the intent or increase the scope of the amendment acted upon by the Board of Directors.

Aha! So a primary amendment required a two-thirds vote and not a majority vote! Was this the case prior to 1958? I looked back at the 1956 BB, and nothing similar to this statement was included in the Amendments section. It’s normal to require a two-thirds vote to amend an organization’s bylaws (and that’s what RONR recommends), but it’s rare to see a statement also requiring one for amendments to amendments. But I’m no expert on governing documents, so I might be speaking out of turn here. I find it fascinating that everyone decided in 1957 to raise RONR’s bar on the motion to amend.* Had something happened at a previous NCS that caused drama? If only I had a time machine. Others would use a time machine to visit pivotal points in history such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but no, I would travel back in time to attend National Council Sessions. Once I actually did dream that I traveled back in time to a NCS in the 1980s and tried to warn everyone about something that I don’t remember, but I digress.

So when did it change from two-thirds to a majority? I skimmed through my BB copies and found it changed in the 1982 BB (Article XVII):

This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at any meeting of the National Council; provided that the Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, shall have deemed the proposed amendment appropriate as an amendment and provided that it shall have been included in the call of the meeting together with the Board’s recommendation thereon. An amendment to an amendment properly before any meeting of the National Council may be made by a majority vote of those present and voting in accordance with the rules governing the meeting, provided the proposed amendment thereto does not alter the intent or increase the scope of the amendment acted upon by the Board of Directors.

A few years ago, I started a history project on GirlScoutGovernance.com reviewing actions taken at National Council Sessions featuring summaries from past Leader Magazines (and recent ones based on my own personal observations). But nothing about this change was mentioned in the 1981 NCS review:

The official work began with the delegates approving the proposed amendments to the Constitution of GSUSA. These amendments will update the Constitution to include past National Presidents and representatives of lone troops as members of the National Council; to provide for consistency regarding the relationship of the Controller to the National Board of Directors; and to provide a means to remove a nonparticipating member of the National Board of Directors.

Hmmm. I don’t have access to the workbook from the 1981 NCS, so I guess this mystery will live on. I doubt it will be featured in an episode of Unsolved Mysteries, though.

Are you still awake and with me? Should I feature more BB rabbit holes on this blog? I’ve kept them to myself this whole time, but perhaps I could start sharing them as part of a parliamentarian opinion.

*Addendum 5/15/25: I wondered if RONR had a different requirement in previous editions, so I found a copy from 1915, and a motion to amend still only required a majority. In fact, it speaks directly to the question: “An amendment of a constitution or by-laws, or rules of order, or order of business, previously adopted, requires a two-thirds vote; but an amendment of that amendment requires only a majority vote.”