DRAFT

Subject to final approval by Management Council and Presidents Council at Pre-Convention meeting

2007 NCAA Division III Business Session

Mootnicity and Related Parliamentary Issues

Presidents Council Grouping – Proposal Nos. 1-12

General Notes – The Presidents Council (PC) has identified 12 proposals and one amendment-to-amendment of particular interest to Division III Chancellors and Presidents. Thus, these proposals are included in the PC grouping. Each proposal will be considered by roll call vote. All motions and votes related to these proposals also must be considered by roll call.

Proposal Number	Procedural Issues	Mootnicity Issues	Miscellaneous Notes
1	Roll call vote.	None.	None.
2	Roll call vote.	None.	None.
3	Roll call vote.	None.	None.
4	Roll call vote.	None.	Because the eight hour limit and the sport specific contest limitations could each be viable as individual concepts, a motion to divide those two points for separate consideration would be in order. The maker of the motion would be required to explain the proposed division. A majority vote is required to divide a proposal.
5	Roll call vote.	None.	None.
6	Roll call vote.	None.	Because the limit to the segment, number and frequency of male practice player participation could each be viable as individual concepts, a motion to divide one or two sections of this proposal for separate consideration would be in order. The maker of the motion would be required to explain the proposed division. A majority vote is required to divide a proposal.
6-1	Roll call vote.	None.	Similar to proposal No. 6, the limit on the number and frequency of male practice player participation could each be viable as individual concepts. Thus, a motion to divide one or two sections of this proposal for separate consideration would be in order. The maker of the motion would be required to explain the proposed division, and a majority vote is required to divide a proposal. Proposal No. 6-1 does not amend proposal No. 6 regarding segment limitations, so that point could not be removed from Proposal No. 6-1 for separate consideration. Parliamentary reminder: An amendment-to-amendment only modifies the original proposal- it does not make any legislative changes itself. Therefore, it is voted on before the original proposal but moved after the original proposal is first moved. In this example, No. 6 is moved first, and then No. 6-1 is moved. If No. 6-1 is adopted, the membership must then vote on No. 6 as amended. If No. 6-1 is defeated, the membership must then vote on No. 6 as originally drafted.
7	Roll call vote.	None.	Proposal No. 7 would apply the participation standard to non-Division III schools. Proposal No. 8 would limit the participation standard to the traditional segment.
8	Roll call vote.	None.	Proposal No. 7 would apply the participation standard to non-Division III schools. Proposal No. 8 would limit the participation standard to the traditional segment.
9	Roll call vote.	None.	If both Proposal Nos. 9 and 11 are adopted, provisional class size will be controlled by Proposal No. 9, with an overall cap of 459 established by Proposal No. 11.
10	Roll call vote.	None.	There may be some interest in removing section B for separate consideration. The maker of the motion would be required to explain the proposed division. A majority vote is required to divide a proposal.

11	Roll call vote.	None.	If both Proposal Nos. 9 and 11 are adopted, provisional class size will be controlled by Proposal No. 9, with an overall cap of 459 established by Proposal No. 11. At the 2006 Convention, an equivalent proposal was referred to the Executive Committee. Conversation at that time suggested the proposal could not be adopted because the Executive Committee had determined that a membership cap was an Association-wide issue. While the Executive Committee continues to believe a membership cap is best addressed as Association-wide basis, research conducted since that time shows that the Association consciously federated membership standards in 1997, and such an issue could be voted on by a single Division.
12	Roll call vote.	None.	None.

General Grouping – Proposal Nos. 13-14

General Notes – This grouping contains two proposals. Each proposal will be considered by general vote.

Proposal Number	Procedural Issues	Mootnicity Issues	Miscellaneous Notes
13	General vote	None	Proposal No.1 establishes a common voting line for Bylaw 10.3 and Proposal No. 13 amends 10.3 via a federated voting line. Both actions become effective at the close of the business session, so a federated change made to Bylaw 10.3 after adoption of Proposal No. 1, but within the same business session, is in order. The change to Bylaw 10.3 made in Proposal No. 13 has already been approved in Divisions I and II.
14	General vote	None	None.

Other notes: There may be a motion from the floor to remove NC-38 (ELIGIBILITY -- GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS -- MALE PRACTICE PLAYERS -- CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS) and I-4 (ELIGIBILITY -- SEASONS OF PARTICIPATION: 10-SEMESTER/15-QUARTER RULE -- MALE PRACTICE PLAYER) from the blue pages for separate consideration.

Motion to Refer (aka Motion to Commit):

Requires:

Second

Majority

Must ID the committee (task force) for referral

May include instructions to the committee/task force (i.e. what to review, when to report back, etc.)

If the task force doesn’t already exist (I think you said that it did), should identify the task force and its members

May be amended to change ID of committee/task force to which referral is made or instructions to the committee/task force

Debatable, but only as to wisdom of referral, not merits of motion

Takes precedence over main motion

Is our of order, if someone else has the floor

Can be reconsidered

Should be made right away and cannot be made after debate is closed

Ruling Something Out of Order:

By Chair:

Chair: The Chair rules that the _________ is not in order because _________.

By Member:

Member: Point of order (may interrupt speaker, who then sits)

No second required

Chair: The member will state his/her point of order.

Member: (explains reason)

Chair: The Chair rules that the point of order is/is not well taken (and gives reason).

No vote

Appeal ruling of Chair:

Member (may be other than first member): I appeal from the decision of the chair.

Second required

Chair: Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?

Debatable, but each speaker speaks only once, except the chair who speaks to the motion and then to close debate

Majority in the negative is required to overrule Chair, i.e. if there is a tie, the Chair’s ruling stands

Division of a Question:

Can be made at any point during debate of main motion, but preferable that it be made at the beginning of debate

Mover must have the floor

Must state clearly the manner of division

Second required

Not debatable

May be amended to divide in another way

Majority

Cannot be reconsidered

A motion cannot be divided unless each part presents a proper question for vote, should none of the other parts be considered or passed. For example: a motion that establishes a committee and identifies the members of the committee cannot be divided, because to vote on the members of the committee without creating the committee does not make sense – it cannot stand alone. If establishment of the committee is defeated, the body could not pass a separated section identifying the members of the committee.

A motion cannot be divided if it is not easily separated into its parts.

A motion must be divided on demand of a member (without vote), if it involves a series of independent resolutions. For example: “I call for a separate vote on Resolution number Three.” In this case, all resolutions divided out are voted upon first, then the remaining parts, as a whole.