In addition, I believe following this rationale, "If a member submits a written Constitutional change the member deserves a vote on their proposed change. If an amendment to the proposed change is made, the change is NO longer the member’s who submitted the amendment." is inconsistent with RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised considering the following.

Page 38 line-17. "Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify as he pleases or to withdrawl it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly's consent; but while the motion is pending the assmbly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment before acting upon it."

Also worth noting - After the motion has been made but before the chair states it or rules it is out of order, no debate is in order (debate is allowed after there has been a second and the chair states the question). At such time, however, any member can quickly rise and, without waiting to be recognized can ask the maker of the motion if he will accept the following modification. The maker can then choose to accept or deny it.

I do not think it is wise to deviate from the parliamentary procedures we are to follow especially without any approved provisions within our bylaws.

Richard, I think we are going to need more from you supporting your position. As I have stated to you privately, it would be a shame if these important issues aren't handled appropriately come the state body meeting and possibly delaying postive changes to KS Wrestling.