Thoughts on Amendment B

I have been questioned about my views about a proposal previously considered at SCC. Here is the proposal: “The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members at a State Central Committee meeting if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the Delegates present at the State Convention. This Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at the State Convention, if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the State Central Committee.” (Utah Republican Party Constitution, Article X.B)

I support a few concepts with this and am interested in further and more robust discussion about this proposal. I recall the author said he was introducing it for discussion purposes and I think many voted for it to keep the discussion alive. I welcome the discussion and think this idea has merit but is not perfect by any means...in fact I hear that it may not come up in June (the author is reconsidering, I guess from feedback he's received).

At any rate, I think that we need to make it difficult to amend our party governing documents. I have seen too much time spent (wasted) in crazy ideas that really don’t build for a stronger party. I like the concept that if it's not broken then don’t fix it. Some like the constant tampering and fiddling. I don’t think it is productive.

This change will make it more difficult to amend the Constitution than the Bylaws “It formerly was common practice to divide the basic rules of an organization into two documents, in order that one of them--the constitution--might be made more difficult to amend than the other, to which the name bylaws was applied. In such a case, the constitution would generally contain the most essential provisions…” (Roberts Rules, pages 13-14).

One other key point is this in NOT a power grab because the SCC already has the ability to prevent a convention from amending the constitution. Under the Bylaws, the C/B Committee decides whether proposed constitutional amendments go to the convention or to the SCC. The controversial amendments are going first to the SCC, which has more time to deliberate on them and make improvements, before they go to the convention. (Bylaws 7.5.H)

Proposals considered first at convention are final. I like having the SCC vet and approve them, essentially strengthening them and also catching other possible unseen problems (like what happened in 2006 when a long amendment was adopted on the first reading and now many wish they had read it closer).

Why fear an added set of eyes on a good idea?