HOUSE OF DELEGATES
2005 Annual Meeting
August 8-9, 2005
SESSION I
Governance Report 11-7A
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you very much. The Chair now calls on Laura Farber to
move the adoption of Recommendation 11-7A (1).
LAURA V. FARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fellow delegates, I rise today to move the
adoption by this body of Recommendation 11-7A (1) on behalf of the Governance
Commission.
SEC: Second.
LAURA V. FARBER: Thank you. This recommendation eliminates the Committee of
Delegates-at-Large and amends the procedure by which association members who are not
members of the House of Delegates may submit resolutions. Specifically, the amendment
provides access by non-members of the House by allowing these individuals to submit
one or more resolutions in writing to the Secretary of the association, who will then refer
each resolution to the Committee on Rules and Calendar. In keeping with the current
procedure, any resolution submitted after the deadline established by the Committee on
Rules and Calendar may not be considered by the House unless the Committee on Rules
and Calendar recommends a waiver of the time limitation and the House approves the
recommendation. The current provision of the Constitution, namely Section 5.1, provides
for a Committee of Delegates-at-Large that consists of the Delegates-at-Large and the
Secretary of the association, who is a member ex officio without a vote. The President of
the association appoints the Chair of the Committee of Delegates -at-Large. This proposal
eliminates that committee and revises the language in current Section 5.2 that requires a
two-thirds vote of the Committee of Delegates-at-Large present in voting to waive the
time deadline that I previously described. The other change proposed by this part icular
recommendation is the elimination of current Section 5.3 and Article 23. Section 5.3
requires that before the opening session of the House that this particular committee hold
one or more public hearings on the resolution submitted pursuant to this article and gives
members an opportunity to be heard. The committee is then required to report to the
House its recommendations on the resolution. And Article 23 addresses the procedures
by which this is accomplished. These provisions, specifically Sect ion 5.1, creating the
Committee of Delegates-at-Large, are descendants of the assembly that was previously
eliminated by the Walker Commission in the first governance review ten years ago.
Since that time, there have not been many resolutions submitted through this process,
which treats these resolutions differently than any other resolutions proposed by any
other entity. The commission recommends the continuation of the position of Delegates at-Large as they are deemed valuable important contributors to the association. These
positions provide an opportunity for others to be involved who might not seek seats from
their state bars or their local bars, their sections or affiliated entities, but will have an
independent strong voice. The commission does believe that the work of the Committee
of the Delegates-at-Large should be easily transferred to the Committee on Rules and
Calendar, which would then provide the same procedure to handle all resolutions. This
would also provide for a streamlined and more efficient way of calendaring
recommendations. At a time when the association is attempting to determine how to
allocate its resources, the Governance Commission strongly believes that this particular
committee should not be one of its funding priorities. It is with these considerations in
mind that I urge your adoption of Recommendation 11-7A (1) to eliminate the Committee
of Delegates-at-Large and amend the procedure by which the association members submit
resolutions. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. Robert Gonzalez, Chair of Constitution and Bylaws.
ROBERT GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee approved the former of
the proposal, but took no position on the substance of the proposal. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair calls on Seth Rosner in opposition.
SETH ROSNER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the House. Yesterday
morning your Delegates-at-Large Committee met and determined to ask the House to
continue the current provisions governing the Delegates-at-Large. I’m almost tempted to
say that I urge the delegates to vote no on this resolution for the reasons so cogently
stated by the proponent. (LAUGHTER) Let me rehearse for newer members the origins
of the Delegate-at-Large office and the committee.
As she indicated, this vetting of
resolutions that are brought… that are intended to be brought to the House of Delegates
by members who are not members of the House was formerly conducted through the
assembly, a very large and unwieldy organization, and the Walker Commission did,
indeed, end that process, rename the assembly delegates Delegates -at-Large and created
the Committee of Delegates-at-Large to undertake that process. First, let me say this is
not a costly committee. If we spend a couple of hundred doll ars a year, it’s a lot. We
had a breakfast on… a continental breakfast, I think, on Sunday.
We meet in the
afternoon at the Midyear Meeting. So in terms of cost, there is virtually none and in
terms of the added costs that the Governance Commission is putting in our budget with
recommendations for expansion of the House, the Board of Governors and the
Nominating Committee, it seems to me that’s really a non-starter as an argument. I guess
to put it most simply, I would suggest to you that a member… non -member of the House,
typically a member of the association who is not conversant with the activities of the
association.
He or she is someone who comes, typically, to support his or her own
agenda item and issue. But to put that person, unfamiliar with our processes, unfamiliar
with our people, before the Committee on Rules and Calendar, which always is burdened
with business on the Saturday and Sunday preceding the meetings of this House, I ask
you how you would feel if you came into a strange room and tried, in the bustle of all of
the business of Rules and Calendar, to undertake a calm and reasoned dialogue about
your particular issue with the members of Rules and Calendar. I’ve been a Delegate -atLarge for five years now. We have, in fact, had four or five members, not members of
the House, who came to us, sat with us, were respectfully and I think felt very
comfortable, although none, to the best of my recollection, of their resolutions ever
reached the floor of the House. It seems to me an undue burden to put on these people
and at very little gain and cost to require them to go to Rules and Calendar rather than to
continue the meetings of the Committee of the Delegates-at-Large and I urge you to vote
no on this resolution.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) The Chair calls Tim Bouch to speak in
favor of the proposition.
TIMOTHY W. BOUCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of the resolution. I do
so in the name of efficiency and the streamlining of the operation of the House. The only
resolutions that are not brought before Rules and Calendar are those suggested by
members of the association that are not delegates. Given the scope or the volume of work
of this committee, the expense, while modest, is an expense and is a staffing obligation. I
urge you, in the name of efficiency of the operation of the House, to support this
resolution of the commission. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair calls on John Bouma, Delegate-at-Large from Arizona,
to speak in opposition.
JOHN J. BOUMA: I come before you in opposition, thinking of the language of the
proponent, how the Delegates-at-Large are “valuable, important contributors” who
provide a “independent, strong voice”. Have you heard a legitimate reason to disb and the
committee? It’s not an issue of resources. You know, we’re not one of the funding
priorities. Seth’s been to too many committee meetings. He forgets that when we met
yesterday, we didn’t even get a cup of coffee, let alone a continental breakfa st. You
know, we are there to represent and assist the members of the House. That’s why you
have the Delegates-at-Large and the committee is the best way for those people to… the
non-members of the House to access it. You have not heard how the disbandi ng of the
committee will make anything run more efficiently or save resources, so I would urge
that you allow the committee to remain in existence and be the source of access for the
non-members of the House.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. The Chair calls on Harry Hathaway of the Governance
Committee, who’s been given the opportunity to speak before the House, privileges of the
House.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise as a member of the
commission to speak in support of the resolution. I spent two days at meetings of the
Rules and Calendar and I have never seen… I’ve been before them many years before
that, being in the House, and I have never seen a more genial, friendly, receptive group
and they have coffee, and they have cookies, and they’ve got softdrinks. So we have
here, I believe, something archaic that the esteemed Delegates-at-Large want to retain
and, in the course of good government, we just don’t need this. The Committee on Rules
and Calendar can deal with the effort. There’s nothing wrong with our Delegates-atLarge, who I support completely and who the commission supports, attending those
meetings and helping those people through those processes. Thank you.
EDUARDO ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ: Eduardo Roberto Rodriguez, State Bar of Texas,
to speak in opposition.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Actually, I want the assembly to know I only have two other
salmon slips and we will then proceed to a vote.
EDUARDO ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ:
Mr. Chair, I really rise for a point of
clarification. In behalf of the State Bar of Texas, I wish to thank all the state and local
bar associations, as well as all the sections that supported our Resolution 10A. Thank
you. I am here to clarify that the State Bar of Texas has not taken a position on the
governance issues of precisely because we had support from all segments of this
association. Therefore, any list being distributed indicating that public position by the
State Bar of Texas, I am certain included our state bar by error. Indeed, our delegation
has been trying to bring all sides together to try and resolve these important issues and
will continue to do so without taking a formal position. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Joe O’Connor to speak in favor.
JOSEPH D. O’CONNOR: I’m privileged to be one of your 18 Delegates-at-Large, also a
member of the Governance Commission in the interest of full disclosure.
It’s a
wonderful group. If there’s a good reason to have a meeting, you couldn’t ask for a
better group. I’ve been a Delegates-at-Large for three years and haven’t seen a good
reason to have a meeting or to have the committee. That’s the way the Governance
Commission was convinced and we believe it is an archaic vestige of the old system that
now can be done away with and, certainly, the people that talked about it yesterday… it
was not a unanimous agreement among all the Delegates-at-Large that we need to
continue the committee. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. Last salmon slip from Jose Feliciano in opposition.
JOSE C. FELICIANO: The chair of the commission said that the first operating principle
was to give deference to the existence of the (inaudible) and I would suggest in this
instance that what he ought to do is give deference to its existence. And by way of
summary, if it ain’t broke, then there’s nothing to fix. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. Ms. Farber, do you wish to close?
LAURA V. FARBER: It’s not broke, but it’s not needed. Thank you. (LAUGHTER
AND APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK:
Thank you.
We’ll now proceed to vote on the motion.
The
proposition requires two-thirds vote. All in favor of the proposition, signify by saying
aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay?
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Could I see a show of hands, please? All in favor? All opposed?
Proposition passes. (APPLAUSE) The next matter before the House is Proposition 11 7A (2). To present the proposition is Harry Hathaway. I have received no salmon slips
in opposition and will invoke limited debate.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will keep this very brief. It
is a housekeeping measure. I move item 11-7A (2).
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Second.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY:
This measure is merely clarifying the actual relationship
between the House and the Board of Governors. That’s all it does. And I think there are
many of us who have been on the Board, many of us who have been in the House who
will read this and agree that it does clean up the language. That ’s all it’s intended to do
and I will get up a little later in the day and talk about a corresponding measure which
takes the Board of Governors and coordinates it with this measure. So that’s it and I urge
your support of this measure. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: All right. Mr. Gonzalez?
ROBERT GONZALEZ: The standing committee approved the form of the proposal, took
no position on the substance of the proposal.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further speakers? We
will now proceed with the vote. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay? (no response) Motion passes. We are now on 11 7A (3). The presenter will come to the well. Mr. Harry Hathaway…
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my fellow members of the
House. This one’s a little tougher on me and it’s presented to you to provoke some
discussion and thought. I move the approval of 11-7A (3).
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Second.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Motion made and seconded.
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: It’s my job.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Please proceed. (LAUGHTER)
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: What this measure does, it provides for term limits. I come
from the state of California. We have term limits in our legislature and I submit this is
not the same type of term limit. We’re a voluntary association. We’re an association
struggling for membership. We’re an association that heard the other day at the Margaret
Brent Luncheon that we’ve got… 50 percent of our law schools are full of women now.
And we have the membership in the ABA... well over 50 percent and we have…
(AUDIENCE CHATTERING) we have… that’s only half full, by the way.
(LAUGHTER) Half full, I didn’t say half empty. But the ABA is continuing to ga in
women membership in the younger ranks, which is very positive. And we need to make
room for these people who are coming along, women and minorities, people who don’t
have access to the leadership in this House, ergo term limits. That’s all we were thi nking
about. We were… we thought about whether or not we were interfering with the activity
and the function of a state and local bar, but we felt this outweighed that. We did a
survey.
The staff conducted the survey about term limits among state and lo cal bar
associations and the returns on this were very interesting. Most of you or many of you
have term limits.
Of the state and local bar associations, there are… we sent out a
survey… 32 respondents saying they have term limits, 47 said they did not a nd 46 did not
respond. With respect to section and division bar delegates, yes 8, no 11. Eight did not
respond. So whether you like it or not, we’re there. What we believe we should do is
just go further with it. Now, whether you vote this up or down, it doesn’t hurt me,
doesn’t hurt you in here. (end of tape 7) Matter of fact, it preserves your position. We
have a minority report that was issued by one of my esteemed colleagues, a woman who I
am extremely fond of, but I was really disappointed in t hat report. Because if you read
through it, here is a woman who has made it in the profession – she’s there, she’s attained
everything and she’s pulled up the ladder. And I… you know, I just can’t… I can’t agree
with her minority report. I just don’t think what she did there was fair. So I urge you… I
urge you to give this serious consideration. There’s going to be a lot of very strong
debate on it, a feeling that the commission is trying to govern your activities at the state
and local bar level and in the sections and divisions. That’s not our intention. Thank
you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair recognizes that a number of these matters are highly
emotional and very important to our association and to this House. The Chair would
request that all speakers use judgment as far as any personal discussions regarding any
individual. (APPLAUSE) We are attorneys and we will debate this at the highest level
as we should and as representatives of our profession and we will not accept any personal
attacks or discussions that stray away from the matters at hand. I thank you for your
cooperation. Mr. Gonzalez.
ROBERT GONZALEZ: The committee approved the form of the proposal, but not the
substance of the proposal. (LAUGHTER)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair recognizes Kathy Burke from Ohio, our State Delegate
from Ohio to make an amendment.
KATHLEEN B. BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this proposal
because I believe that, while it may be well intentioned, it is bad policy. The policy of
this association should be that the bar associations and other entities represented in this
House are best suited to determine who will most ably represent them here.
(APPLAUSE) And with all due respect to the Governance commission, Mr. Hathaw ay
said that they didn’t think… that they did think about interfering with the prerogatives of
state and local bar associations. I respectfully submit that they didn’t think hard enough
about it because it is true that among the state and local bar associ ations and other
entities represented in the House, there are a variety of views as to the wisdom of term
limits. Some state and local bars, including some local bars in my own state, do impose
term limits on their delegates. Others, including the Ohio State Bar Association, have
elected not to do so in favor of determining on a case-by-case basis who will best
represent them, whether a delegate should be continued, whether a new person should be
invited into the delegation. Please give our state and local bar associations credit for
having both the brains and the spinal fortitude to make those determinations on a case -bycase basis. And let me mention that there are sound reasons why a bar association or a
section might elect to retain its discretion to continue a delegate over an extended period
of time. In some instances, it may be difficult to find a new delegate who is willing and
able to serve because there may be great distances to travel, expense to be incurred, loss
of time. Moreover, there are other sound reasons. Brooksley Born reminded us this
morning of the late John Pickering and his contributions. We have only to remember
John to realize that a delegate with years of experience may not only enhance the clout of
the association that he or she represents, but may also mentor new delegates and add to
the collective wisdom of this body as a whole. And we have seen many such instances
and many great contributors over the years. The solution proposed by the Governance
Commission is an easy solution for a perceived problem. If there is, indeed, a problem
that new persons are not encouraged to come forward by some states, then those states
should be counseled with and they should take that into consideration in making their
own decisions. But let them make those decisions. Please defeat this proposal. Thank
you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? To
the new… the new proposal. Are you…? I have something here that says Ohio State
Amendment, so let us be clear about what it…
KATHLEEN B. BURKE: Let me clarify that the Ohio State Bar Amendment will not be
moved and the reason for that is that the policy it reflects, which is to allow the
associations and entities represented to make their own determinations, should be
extended to all groups represented in this House and not limited to representatives of
state and local bar associations. So we want to make that clarification and we will not
move the amendment for that reason. In other words, please oppose this proposal as a
whole. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. We’re learning as you are and what we now find is
that that is in opposition.
I have actually 11 salmon slips, all that go to the same
proposition as stated by Ms. Burke.
I now will hear from a proponent, if there is a
proponent.
There is a… there is a salmon slip from Paul Moxley on behalf of the
Governance Commission’s Minority Report. Mr. Moxley.
PAUL T. MOXLEY: I wanted to speak for a minute about the Minority Report. Donna
Willard and I struggled about whether or not we should include such a report. We came
together as a group and for over two years worked very hard on all these issues and the re
was sort of a consensus, at least amongst the commission, that there should be a Minority
Report. But in any event, Donna and I felt very strongly about these issues. She wrote
what I thought was an excellent report, very well reasoned, and I joined i n three points,
one of which was this business about term limits which, quite frankly, was at the very
heart of the Governance Commission’s thrust because the concept was to have more
inclusion, to shake up the association, to open the tent to allow more p eople to
participate.
And I thought this was a great idea, but I thought it was the wrong
amendment at the wrong time and from the wrong place. And by the wrong place, I
mean, it should come from the constituent bodies whether or not they want to continu e to
have people. And the other important point is that why would we want to lose our most
experienced delegates? My feeling is is that it’s more wisdom that we need and not less.
And the fact that Donna and I were outvoted early and often on these poin ts, many points,
didn’t dissuade us. Thank you for your attention. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: I understand there is one more speaker in favor of the proposition.
Would you come to the well and identify yourself?
BETSY PREVIN: Yes, I’m Betsey Previn from the New York City Bar Association. I
was a member of the House of Delegates for about five or six years 15 years ago as a
delegate from the City Bar. I returned a year ago in my capacity as President of the City
Bar and I rise to support the concept of term limits as proposed by the commission. I
think in the last 15 years many bar associations, thankfully including the ABA, have
become dynamic forces of change and advocates for the protection of individual rights
and for support of the rule of law around the world. And it’s important that this dynamic
approach to our profession and the legal system be reflected in the membership of the
House. As a bar leader in New York, I have always supported and in one organization I
led, previously instituted term limits for many of the same reasons that I think are
applicable to this House. First, to ensure vitality through new members joining the group
– people with new ideas.
Second, the provide more leadership opportunities for the
thousands of active members of this organization. And, finally, to enhance the diversity
of this body to better reflect our profession. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. I have approximately 30 salmon slips in opposition.
Would any of…
(MULTIPLE PEOPLE SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY FROM AUDIENCE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: You waive? They waive. Give us an opportunity up here to first
see if we can work it out. And I understand that Mr. Hathaway… are you… do you wish
to speak in opposition?
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: (inaudible – no microphone)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: All right. We have… may I ask, would you like to… if that’s…
MARY PAT TOUPS: Mary Pat Toups, representing the Orange County Bar Association
in California. Several months ago my bar passed a resolution which would put out on the
House of Delegates listserv – I hope you all are on that listserv – and sent to the
Governance Commission. We object to the imposition of term limits on local bars. We
believe that local bars are capable of making their own decisions and should be allowed
to do so. If local bars want to term limit, that should be their choice. If they choose not
to term limit, that should be their choice. When it comes to the argument about diversity,
you can look around the room and realize this group is mostly white males. But I want to
point out to you that the Orange County Bar Association has two delegates – one man and
one woman. We did not need term limits to diversify our representation in this House.
Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you.
MARY PAT TOUPS: Please vote no. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mr. Hathaway has kindly waived his right to close. We will now
proceed to a vote This requires a two-thirds majority vote to be adopted. All in favor of
the proposal signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: All opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair is not in doubt. (LAUGHTER) The proposal fails. Let
me just explain a little bit about how we’re proceeding up here and ask your indulgence.
We have in the front row here floor leaders, both sides of all these issues. And I have
before me different files with salmon slips and also amendments. And what I try to do is
look to the floor leaders to see whether or not they wish to have additional people speak.
They do not want to incur the wrath of this House, I assure you. With that in mind, I
would ask your indulgence in calling for the question. If you wish to, you most certainly
have the right to do it. I most certainly will recognize it at a point in tim e when it is
appropriate. But I would ask that we try and give people an opportunity to briefly discuss
these issues so that they’re aired once and for all and that everybody leaves here feeling
that they had their fair day and opportunity to speak to the House. I would appreciate
that. Thank you very much. We are going to go now to 11-7A (4). Laura Farber will
present on this matter.
LAURA V. FARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fellow Delegates, I rise today to move the
adoption by this body of Recommendation 11-7A (4) on behalf of the Governance
Commission.
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Second.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: We will have limited… we have a second. We will have limited
debate. There is nothing… no one in opposition.
LAURA V. FARBER: Thank you. This is a recommendation that provides exception
language regarding absences for State Delegates and Delegates -at-Large.
The
recommendation proposes amended Section 6.3D to provide a State Delegate who will be
missing two consecutive meetings with an opportunity to submit a written statement of
good cause for the absence to the House Committee on Credentials and Admissions and
allow that committee to determine whether the absence should be excused. The reasons
for the recommendation are that State Delegates and Delegates-at-Large should be
entitled to an excused emergency absence without risking the loss of his or her seat and I
urge your support. Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: (inaudible) Mr. Gonzalez, I’d like your thoughts on this subject.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERT GONZALEZ: Yes, Mr. Chair. The committee members who were present or
had excused absences (LAUGHTER) voted to approve the form of the proposal, but not
the substance.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: We will now proceed to a vote on this matter. It requires two thirds. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay. (NO RESPONSE) The matter is approved. We are
now on 11-7A (5). Presenting on this matter is Ms. Laura Farber.
LAURA V. FARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fellow Delegates, I rise today to move the
adoption by this body of Recommendation 11-7A (5) on behalf of the Governance
Commission and the Young Lawyers Division.
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Second.
LAURA V. FARBER:
Thank you.
This recommendation poses a constitutional
amendment to decrease from five to four the number of state and local bar delegates that
triggers the requirement that a young lawyer be certified as a delegate.
Based on
statistics from membership, young lawyers comprise anywhere from 25 to 62 percent of
the ABA members of each state. This particular recommendation would currently only
affect two states – Oregon and Kentucky – since all other states either have five or more
delegates or fewer than four. The ABA member percentage of young lawyers in Oregon
is 41 percent and in Kentucky it’s 35 percent. Let me tell you what this recommendation
does not do. It does not add or take away seats in the House. The very formulas that are
found in Section 6.4 of the constitution that allocate seats based on lawyer membership in
a state and ABA membership in a state determine how many seats a state and/or local bar
will have in the House. The young lawyer numbers for each of those formulas represent
on the average one-third of the total numbers. If the young lawyer numbers were not
counted, every delegation seated in the House would have fewer delegates, some by one,
two or even three delegates. In other words, but for the young lawyer mem bers of the
profession and of the ABA, the state and local bar delegations in this House would not
have the number of seats that they currently enjoy. Young lawyers comprise a total of six
percent of the seats in the House, yet represent well over one-third, if not more, of the
lawyers in this country and ABA members.
Young lawyers are the future of this
profession and, for membership and policy reasons, need to have more representation in
the House. Even though the recommendation only seeks a modest two seats at this time,
it does provide more access for young lawyers, which will send an important message
about the value of bringing this viewpoint to the table in an important decision making
capacity.
Membership of young lawyers is growing and this segment should have a
voice. Compared with the rest of the bar, young lawyers as a group are more diverse and
are, therefore, likelier to help the association combat the glass ceiling. Young lawyers
also bring to the association a different perspective on law, practice and the profession
than their more experienced colleagues.
The future of the bar association as the
profession’s representative depends critically on the active and organized presence of
young lawyers. The Young Lawyers Division is the largest and most active organization
within the association. The sheer volume of the work that is performed by the YLD
through its affiliate network, which consists of state and local bar associations throughout
this country, is tremendous, as well as its commitment to the development of important
policy positions and leaders. A vote of support of this recommendation is a vote to
continue access to the profession and its policy making and leadership roles by making
sure that young lawyers are part of this process. Young lawyers are the only constituency
within the association to which almost every single member has belonged. They are no
less equipped to sit in this House than any other lawyer in the profession. Further, many
young lawyers have been practicing for many years, have made substantial contributions
locally and/or on the state level and will continue to make contributions to the
association. Many people sitting in this House today came through this House either
through the YLD or as a young lawyer from their delegations. If our association wants to
attract and retain young lawyers, which has been one of the biggest challenges that we
have faced over the last several year, we need to ensure that this voice is represented, that
they’re joining, they’re participating, they’re interacting and they’re expressing their
views. There is no substitute for providing young lawyers the opportunity to develop
policy, share their views, and lead the association and keep it relevant so that it will grow
and continue to grow in the future. I’m also speaking on behalf of the Young Lawyers
Division.
It represents 125,000 of our 400,000 members.
convened
at
this
particular
meeting,
it
wildly
At its assembly which
unanimously
supported
this
recommendation and it spoke with one unified voice. I ask that you, members of this
House, make this very small change for a large return to increase the access and voice of
one-third of our association members. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mr. Gonzales, your thoughts, sir.
ROBERT T. GONZALES: The committee approved the form of the proposal and took no
provision on the substance.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you very much. Speaking in opposition, Charles English,
State Delegate from Kentucky.
CHARLES E. ENGLISH:
Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the House, I’m
Charlie English, the State Delegate from Kentucky. Let me echo and congratulate the
logic of the preceding speaker. What she says is very appropriate. However, why are we
starting in Kentucky and Oregon if the problem is this perverse?
We have had no
indication from our Young Lawyers group in Kentucky that they wanted this provision to
be implemented.
We in Kentucky are supporting the Young Lawyers group because
they’re having their national meeting in Louisville this fall and we support that.
However, the first that I learned that this was going to be considered as having an impact
on Kentucky was when I arrived here.
Now, one other significant problem that this
creates as far as Kentucky is concerned… we are an integrated bar. We function… our
bar association function’s as a part of the court. We have bar rules that are put in place
that go through a long process. We have hearings at our state bar conventions. It takes
about two years to go through one of these processes. Why is it necessary at this time
and this way to create an unnecessary confrontation between this resolution and a court
rule that we have in Kentucky that says how our members to the House of Delegates are
selected? That does not seem to me the appropriate way to address this problem. If there
is the problem of the representation and increasing the number of delegates, let’s do it in
another way and address the greater problem rather than this body directing that we must
go through the process of amending our court rules and changing the process by which
we have elected our state representatives to this body. And as the distinguished lady
from Ohio said, bar associations are best suited to decide who represents them. If we ha d
a problem of that just in Kentucky, we believe we can best address it there rather than
coming up here and learning about it for the first time. I don’t want to take issue with the
overall problem that she presents. I only take issue that this is not t he proper way to
address the problem. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Judge Laurie Zelon, State Delegate from California, speaking in
favor of the proposition.
HON. LAURIE D. ZELON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m Laurie Zelon, the State Delegate
of California and I rise to speak in favor of this proposition. I will shock all of you when
I tell you that I’m not a young lawyer. You’re all surprised. I was once, but I won’t tell
you how long ago. But I have a lot to learn from young lawyers. I’ve been around this
association a long time. I’ve been in the practice of law a long time. And I still learn
new things every day from people who are coming to things with a fresh perspective, a
fresh face, a fresh voice and a fresh eye. And I think that the debate and the discussion in
this house can learn as much from the young lawyers as I do from the young lawyers who
I see every day. We’re not talking about something new and revolutionary here. The
constitution already says that depending on your represe… the number of lawyers that
you have in your state, it determines whether or not one of your representatives should be
a young lawyer. All we’re doing is changing the number. It happens only to affect two
states, it was not targeting two states. It’s just changing the rule to recognize a fact. The
fact is, our profession is growing. That’s a good thing. But our profession is growing
with young lawyers and more and more of the lawyers in our profession are young
lawyers. And so for each state who gets more delegates here, it’s because they have more
young lawyers in their state. So let us not look at this as something that is targeted, let us
look at this as an expansion of what we already have in recognition of the fact that it is
the young lawyers who are growing our profession and that we should hear their ideas
and their voices. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair has no further salmon slips in opposition. I understand
that the numerous speakers who have filed in favor of this proposition have waived the
opportunity to speak and Ms. Farber will close? Or do you waive that? Ms. Farber
waives the opportunity to close. We will now proceed to a vote on the proposition. It
requires a two-third majority. There’s a lot of people moving around. I’m going to give
you a chance to get to your seats for a second, even though your voices, I’m sure, will
carry. All right. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The Chair is in doubt. Will you please raise your hand if you’re in
favor? Thank you. Would you raise your hand if you are opposed? (TALKING TO
SOMEONE IN BACKGROUND) I think it’s two-thirds. Huh? Yeah. I think that’s…
the Chair is not in doubt and the proposition passes. (APPLAUSE) We will now proceed
to 11-7A (6). Presenting on this matter on behalf of the Governance Committee, Mr.
Harry Hathaway.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: 11-7A provides for a minimum numbers of delegates for each
section and division. I move 11-7A (6).
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Second.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the house, this provision links
together two parts of our constitution. The first one is amendment to Section 6.2A (5),
where the commission recommends that each section or division be allocated at least two
delegates in the House of Delegates. It allows each section or division to increase its
effectiveness in the House by having more than a mere one delegate. This only affects
Individual Rights, Public Contracts and, I believe, Government Lawyers. I think those of
us who have been in the House representing sections and have had measures before this
House know how difficult it can be to try to work alone to get support in this body. And
I think it just makes sense that we give the bodies in the House, the sections and the
divisions, a minimum of two delegates. The other measure, which is 6.6, increases the
maximum number of delegates a section may have by raising it from the now four to five.
As sections continue to grow in this association, which I think is a great thing and I
believe most of us do, sections should be given increased representation. Right now, this
addition of one delegate would only affect one section, the Litigation Section. But I
think it’s a great incentive for us to have here the opportunity for a section to gain an
addi… or a division to gain an additional delegate if they’re growing. I think that the
commission was… talked about this and felt very strongly that the work of this House
was very important, the delegates do a great job and it only makes good sense for you to
support this. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mr. Gonzales, we have a (inaudible) in bylaws.
ROBERT T. GONZALES: Yes, sir. The form was approved, the substance we took no
position on.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. Speaking in opposition, Ms. Donna Willard -Jones,
commission member, State Delegate from Alaska, presenting the Minority Report.
DONNA C. WILLARD-JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair, fellow members of the House.
At the outset, let me dispel what has become a persistent rumor. No, it’s not true, I have
not been wrestling grizzly bears. (LAUGHTER) I have a pi nched nerve in my neck,
which… but no good story to go with it. On a more serious note, the task upon which I
am about to embark is not an easy one. The wild salmon of Alaska each year learn how
difficult it is to swim upstream, battling the relentless flow of our glacial waters as they
go to complete their life cycle.
In disagreeing with my esteemed colleagues on the
Governance Commission, I found myself in a similar situation. How much easier and
less contentious it would have been to simply go with the flow. However, as we all
appreciate, no principled lawyers with the courage of his or her convictions takes the easy
path. Rather, it is Robert Frost’s less traveled road that we all tread. The end of that
journey for me in terms of this matter was the crafting and publication of the minority
report in which commission member Paul Moxley joined in certain respects. Fortunately,
or otherwise, depending upon your perspective, you will hear from me a number of times
throughout the next day. For now, I limit my remarks to one subject – the proposed
enlargement or expansion in the size of the House of Delegates which is embodied
initially in Recommendation 11-7A (6).
At first blush, this proposal appears to be
innocuous, leading to the addition of only four new seats in the House. However, before
you vote on it, I would like you to consider it, if you would, in the context of other
proposals which will follow. First, some facts and figures. As presently constituted, we
are a 546 member body, representing some one million lawyers in our nation.
We
already are larger than the combined House and Senate of the United States, which
represents a population in excess of 281,000,000. Second and more important, if this
recommendation, together with the others proposed by the commission, is adopted, the
realistic size of the House effective after the 2006 Annual Meeting would be as high as
561, an increase of some 15 seats.
In addition, given the expansion year -by-year of
lawyer population throughout the nation, it would not be unrealistic to expect that by the
time of the next decennial review, the House would contain at least 566 members, if not
more. Another fact, as I sum quickly. The poll taken by your commission reflected that
the majority of the members of this House felt it should remain at this level, the current
level and a substantial number felt that, in fact, we should cap. Please, before voting in
favor of this recommendation, consider those numbers. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. Speaking in favor of the proposition, Elisia Frazier,
IR&R delegate.
C. ELISIA FRAZIER: Fellow Delegates, my name is C. Elisia Frazier and I am the lone
delegate for the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. And, as you know,
there has not, in my three-year term as the delegate and all of my predecessors, there has
not been one Annual Meeting or Midyear Meeting that has passed that we have not
brought at least one, but oftentimes multiple recommendations before you. I stand in
support of this recommendation because it is essential that each section has the ability to
have the most active participation in this House as they possibly can. You know that the
Section of Individual Rights and Responsibility, State and Local Government an d the
other section that would be benefited from this recommendation deserve the right to have
at least a colleague to help them have active participation in this House. And, yes, we do
have active participation in this House as a… (end of tape 8)… single delegates, but as
you and the state delegations know, that it is always helpful to have companionship. It is
much more easy to work delegations, it is much more easy to be participants in the other
bodies of this House if you, in fact, have a colleague who can help you shepherd through
these type of matters and to be as active as possible and to address the issue as to whether
this is a dilution of power. Net four seats to the House of Delegates is not a dilution of
anybody’s power, this is just about helping to engage in the dialogue of this House. It’s
about if you were fortunate enough to hear the candidate for the Chair of the House,
Laura Bellows, yesterday talk about her vision for this House, what she would like to see
us engaged in. These are the kind of things when you have colleagues, at least two with
you, that you can help move that type of agenda forward. I was excited to hear about her
proposed plans if she is elected and giving sections at least a minimum of two delegates
help us move for a debate that we all agree as lawyers we should participate in. And I
ask you to consider this proposal on its merits. This is not about us vs. them, this is
about all of us coming together to have some active dialogue in the House of Delegates.
And I hope you join me in supporting the commission’s recommendation on 11 -A (6)…
11-7A (6). Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Speaking in favor of the proposition, Dennis Drasco.
DENNIS J. DRASCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the House. I ris e as Chair
of the Section of Litigation in support of this resolution and I am here to speak on behalf
of the second part of this resolution. In 1990, the ABA, through it’s House of Delegates,
voted to increase the then current level of section representation in the House. As a
result, the largest sections of the ABA, upon receiving or achieving 50,000 members,
became entitled to four delegates. However, regardless of the amount of members above
50,000, no section is entitled to any more than the maximum of four delegates. In the
span of 15 years since 1990, membership in the largest sections have grown.
For
example, the Section of Litigation, which had 58,000 members in 1990 now have over
74,000 members.
In 1990, in proposing the recommendation to inc rease the largest
section’s representation to four, stated, “This additional representation for sections and
divisions is in recognition of the contributions they make to the work of the House. It is
significant, but at that time I don’t believe anyone contemplated growth in section
membership of the magnitude that has occurred in the largest sections. This is a good
thing for the ABA. It’s certainly a good thing for the House. As was said previously, the
work of the House is difficult and in order to share the responsibilities, it’s necessary for
the most active, the largest sections, to have additional delegates. I submit that on behalf
of the Section of Litigation and other sections which will hopefully grow to over 60,000
members, that you adopt this resolution. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you very much. There are a number of additional speakers
but I’ve been advised that they waive. Is that correct? Thank you. And Mr. Hathaway,
you have a right to close. You waive. We will move to a vote on the proposition. All in
favor of the proposition, signify… (VOICE FROM AUDIENCE – INAUDIBLE) Yes,
sir. Rising to speak, would you state your name at microphone no. 5?
ROBERT A. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bob Weeks from the Santa Clara County
Bar Association. I don’t know if other delegates share the thought, but I find myself
looking at this and there are two distinct issues and I have different views on those and I
would move that we have a separate vote on each of those two. I believe they’re easily
divisible.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Your motion is to divide…
ROBERT A. WEEKS: There… there…
STEPHEN N. ZACK: (inaudible)
ROBERT A. WEEKS: To divide the issues for purposes of the vote because I think there
are two distinct issues presented under this particular 11-7A (6). We just heard this
person speak and say, “I’m speaking to the second part of that.” There’s one that have…
everybody have… each section would have at least two and then the over 60,000 you get
an additional one. I believe those are separate and would ask for a separate vote.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: I hear a motion and a second. All in favor of the division, signify
by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: We will divide it and that is a good suggestion, sir. Thank you.
The motion then will be as follows. As I understand it, Mr. Hathaway, would you like to
chair the division or do you want the Chair to divide it for you?
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: The Chair (inaudible).
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Okay. We will then say that there will be a… the division will
read as follows. That this proposition will provide first each section and division with at
least two delegates. That will be the first thing we’re going to vot e on. Second thing we
will vote on is that this proposition shall raise the maximum number of delegates a
section may have. Correct? All right. We’ll proceed… (VOICE FROM AUDIENCE –
INAUDIBLE) Pardon me?
UNIDENTIFIED DELEGATE: From four to five.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: From four to five. All right. We will proceed on that basis. The
seconders from the original motion, I assume, agree to the seconding the motion as
divided?
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Yes. Second.
STEPHEN N. ZACK:
All right.
We will now proceed on the first motion.
First
proposition A (6), first part of it, all those in favor of providing each section and division
with at least two delegates, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: All righty. Uh… (LAUGHTER) We will ask you to please… the
Chair will ask you to please raise your hand if you are in favor of that motion. All right.
Would you please raise your hand if you’re opposed to that motion. Hmm. That’s pretty
close. Huh?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: That’s close enough to vote. Yeah. I am close to making a
decision. Uh… but… (LAUGHTER) But I will tell you that from up here, I am going to
have to have a vote. And I’m sorry, but we will ask those in favor to please stand. It is
so hard. Those in the back of the room, again, clear the back of the room and stay
standing.
(CONVERSATION GOING ON IN BACKGROUND WHILE VOTE IS BEING TAKEN
– MOSTLY INAUDIBLE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Have the tellers counted all of those in favor?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Not yet.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Have we counted all those in favor?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN AND WOMAN: Yes.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: All right. You may sit down. All those in opposition, please
stand.
(CONVERSATION GOING ON IN BACKGROUND WHILE VOTE BEING
TAKEN) Have all the nay votes been counted? Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: The nay votes may be seated. The Chair is closer to a decision.
(LAUGHTER) We needed 303 votes for a two-thirds vote to pass the proposition. There
were 314 yes votes. The proposition does pass. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. We have the
second part of the proposition as severed, which now stands before the House as follows.
The proposition is to raise the maximum number of delegates a section may have from
four to five. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Would all those in favor stand? Just stand. Maybe this will make
it easier. All those opposed, please stand. We’re going to take a vote, if necessary. This
matter… this proposition fails. We will not proceed to 11 -7A (7). Presenting on behalf
of the Governance Commission is Mr. Harry Hathaway.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the House.
After this, I’ll be out of your hair for a little while.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Please give us your attention.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: This is a good housekeeping measure. 11-7A (7) deals with
revising the filing deadlines before the House. I move the approval of this matter.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Madam Secretary?
WILLIAM H. NEUKOM: Second.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: It’s been proved…
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: I apologize.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: It’s all right. It’s been seconded from Mr. Neukom.
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM: Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: We will proceed.
HARRY L. HATHAWAY: Fellows, ladies and gentlemen of the House, currently the
state and local bar associations can file reports up to the last day Rules and Calendar
meets before our meeting. Other entities must comply with more rigid filing deadlines.
That means that they must file with more lead time for Rules and Calendar. The late
filing opportunity which we provide state and local bars currently is in place to
accommodate state and local bars who for some reason or other cannot meet until after
the final deadline. We believe that this measure, which is a ten day filing requirement for
everyone, should be adequate to cover the exigencies of a state or local bar. Obviously,
if there is an emergency of some kind, I can assure you that Rules and Calendar, given…
the proper reasons given, therefore, would approve even a later filing, even at the time of
the meeting. So given that, we have made this recommendation which would require all
reports to be filed ten days before the last meeting of Rules and Calendar before our
House meeting. And any late report could be filed following the current late rules, which
provide for that. Simple procedure and I urge your support of it.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mr. Gonzales?
ROBERT T. GONZALES: In a last second vote, (LAUGHTER) the committee voted to
approve the form, but took no position on the substance.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you. In opposition will be Jonathan Ross.
JONATHAN L. ROSS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Jonathan Ross. I am the
New Hampshire Bar Delegate to this House and I am Immediate Past President of the
National Caucus of State Bars and we oppose this proposal by the Governance
Commission. State bars do not meet in the same fashion that sections and committees in
this great association meet and when they are able to get together, they are not funded in
the same way that these other groups are. What they do do is come together as a group at
the National Caucus of State Bar Meetings, which occurs on Sunday, the last day that the
Rules and Calendar Committee meets. And when there is a matter of mutual interest, it is
important for state bars and local bars to have the opportunity to file late reports as a
matter of right, not as a matter of grace. And this provision has been in the constitution
to recognize the very particular needs of the bar associations that make up this great
House. And I would ask you to vote no on this proposal. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Speaking in favor of the proposal, Mr. Anthony Palermo.
ANTHONY R. PALERMO: Palermo.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: I said Palermo.
ANTHONY R. PALERMO: Anthony Palermo, representing the Senior Lawyers.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Tony Palermo is how I usually refer to you. (LAUGHTER) Can’t
you tell from the color of his hair.
ANTHONY R. PALERMO: Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I support this proposal.
Many of the recommendations that have been… come out from the commission, I do not
agree with. There are many things in Donna Jones’ Minority Report that I agree with.
I’ve been prepared to speak four and against a number of these proposals. This one, to
me, is a very simple no brainer. The fact of the matter is as… from my experience, I’ve
been a State Bar Association Delegate, I’ve been the State Delegate, I have been a
Member of the Board, I have been an Officer and now I’m a Section Representative. In
all of those positions, it has always been very frustrating to be dealing with something
that we haven’t seen before. That is true of the Board, it’s true of any section and it’s
true of other bar associations. There is no problem here, it seems to me, because we have
an escape mechanism. We’ve got a very fine Rules and Calendar that if there’s a case of
an emergency and something that’s of vital importance to the profession, it’s going to be
treated. But as a matter of practice, we ought to have a ten day limit rule. That’s not too
onerous. Bar associations have Executive Committees and, frankly, if they don’t, then
I’m not sure that we really want to allow a motion to come before this deliberate body
without the ability to understand and deliberate. So in the… and as a matter of fairness
and simplicity and good organization, this is a commission recommendation I heartily
support.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you, Mr. Palermo. Speaking in opposition, Bob Fraber.
Bob?
CHERYL I. NIRO: I’ll be (inaudible).
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Okay. Cheryl Niro.
CHERYL I. NIRO: Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Thank you.
CHERYL I. NIRO: Thank you. I’m Cheryl Niro. I am the Past President of the Illinois
State Bar Association and have participated in this body for many years. During those
years, I have never seen a report filed by a state bar association confound this
deliberational body, nor have I seen any opportunity in those years for the state bar
organizations to meet together to discuss, to dialogue on issues of importance to them in
advance of the Sunday morning meeting when we typically convene. It is, indeed, true
that there is a provision under paragraph 45.5 of the constitution that allows for a late
filing, but it requires a vote of two-thirds of Rules and Calendar, which is not close to the
kind of easily overcome obstacle that you have been instructed perhaps exists.
The
mechanisms for state bars to get together in advance of this meeting to deliberate would
be very difficult to create.
It’s a longstanding non-problem.
I ask you not to fix
something that hasn’t not been broken. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Speaking in favor of the proposition, David Pasternak.
DAVID J. PASTERNAK: Good afternoon. I’m David Pasternak from the Local Bar
Association of Los Angeles and a regular user of this exception, including late filed 10-C,
which you will hear more about tomorrow. This is a reasonable balance of the needs of
this body, the Rules and Calendar Committee and the local and state bar associations. I
guess in this day and age of electronic communication, we just do things a little bit
quicker in California than our friends in New Hampshire. But I don’t see why our friends
in New Hampshire and our friends in Illinois can’t do things as the rest of us do in many
other parts of this nation. This is a resolution which will work. We’re all used to filing
our papers in court not at the last minute, ten days, 15 days, 20 days before hearings. I
don’t see why we can’t file our resolutions ten days before this body starts to meet.
Thank you.
STEPHEN N. ZACK:
Thomas Levin, Delegate from New York.
We only have, I
believe, one more salmon slip.
A. THOMAS LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Tom Levin. I’m the Chair -Elect
of the Caucus of State Bar Associations, a Delegate from the New York State Bar and a
Past-President of the New York State Bar. This proposal has been described as a good
housekeeping measure. I would suggest to you it’s a housekeeping measure, but it’s not a
good one.
In particular, it’s been mentioned by previous speak ers that the state bar
associations do not have an opportunity to work together sufficiently in advance of the
meetings in order to be able to submit proposals without the ability to meet the late filing
rule that we have in the bylaws at the present time. The Caucus of State Bar Associations
meets on Sunday morning, the day before the House of Delegates meets. If we were not
permitted to have propositions come out of that meeting and file them with Rules and
Calendar that day, we would have to meet the two-thirds deadline… the two-thirds
majority of the Rules and Calendar in order to get anything on the agenda. That’s a
difficulty. It’s also a difficulty for many state bars who have in their own procedures
timing that doesn’t allow them to file things on time. My bar, for example, at the time of
the Midyear Meeting, our Annual Meeting and our House of Delegates Meeting is
approximately one week before the ABA Midyear Meeting.
If we were to adopt a
proposal at that meeting, we would not be able to file it as a late report. I would suggest
to you, this is a solution in search of a problem. Nobody has given us an illustration of
how this has hurt this body in any way. It may be difficult or unpleasant sometimes to
deal with items that come up at the last minute but the opportunity to bring those up when
they are warranted should be there. I urge you to defeat this proposal. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mark Schickman in opposition, having no further salmon slips in
favor.
MARK I. SCHICKMAN: Mark Schickman of San Francisco, proud to join with my
brothers from New Hampshire and Illinois, and the rest of this country in terms of being
able to utilize this procedure when it is needed. I’m a huge believer in this House. I’m a
huge believer in this body.
I think that this body has the opportunity to say it has
something on time, it has something late and that that decision should not be taken away
from this group by an unnecessary rule. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Mr. Hathaway waives his right to close. We will proceed to a vote
on the proposition. All in favor of the proposition, signify by saying aye.
DELEGATES: Aye.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Opposed, nay.
DELEGATES: Nay.
STEPHEN N. ZACK: Proposition fails. That concludes all items before this body under
Proposal A regarding the House of Delegates.
I want to thank all floor leaders, all
speakers and all members of this House for the way they conducted that debate. We wi ll
now proceed to item and proposals referred to as B regarding the Nominating Committee.
Will those floor leaders and speakers come to the well of the House so that we can
proceed as quickly as possible? We will now take up 11-4 as our next item. Presenting
11-4 will be Chris Jeter. He is the Chair of the ABA Law Student Division from the
District of Columbia.