American Council of the Blind 62nd Annual Conference and Convention
6/22/2023 8:00 PM

CONFIDENTIAL ROUGHLY EDITED REALTIME FILE
Compliments of HRICART.com

***************************************
This file was created in real time by a Human Realtime Captioner for the purpose of communication access. It is not a certified legal transcript and may not be entirely verbatim. It is intended for use by the consumer only as notes of the proceedings. A consumer should check with the presenter for any clarification of the presentation.

***************************************

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND
62ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND CONVENTION - RESOLUTIONS
JUNE 22, 2023, 8:00 PM
CONFIDENTIAL ROUGHLY EDITED REALTIME FILE
Compliments of HRICART.com
***************************************
This file was created in real time by a Certified Realtime Captioner for the purpose of communication access.  It is not a certified legal transcript and may not be entirely verbatim.  It is intended for use by the consumer only as notes of the proceedings.  A consumer should check with the presenter for any clarification of the presentation.
***************************************	

	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Good evening, everyone, and welcome to night 3 of resolutions 2023, and we have lots of interesting resolutions to cover this evening.  It is purely coincidental, but this is the night before, we took them in the order we had them and when we ran out, we ran out.  So basically tonight we will be covering four resolutions and determining their fate. 
	I want to just make a couple of quick announcements before I turn it over to Ray Campbell, who will be our presiding officer again, this evening, and I thank him for his diligence all week.  This is a terrible job, so -- [Laughter]. 
	First of all, we got very good reviews last night on using the Q&A box and we will use it again.  I want to absolutely encourage you not to use it as a chat.  Last night at the height of our questions when we were actually working on some of the discussion in the last resolution and Carla's mention to amend, which I will talk about, we had over 80 comments from people in that box.  I would say half of them, that seriously many, were great questions or comments but they weren't relevant to the topic and/or comments saying how great it was, and I appreciate that, but not then.  So I would ask, please, that you limit your use of it to what needs to be said that would be more efficiently delivered that way.  And again, you can use it during the five-minute Q&A section to ask questions or get clarification. 
	You can use it at any time for a real point of order, a point of order being something in terms of the procedural issues or whatever, but not questions, again, in that period of time. 
	And then in general, you can't use it for other stuff, or you shouldn't.  It really, really will help.  Last night we didn't necessarily rule all of that out of order, but we may need to go tighter on that tonight because it's just a supplemental tool to help us. 
	If you do raise your hand for a point of order and it gets word -- and it's appropriate to be asking that question, you can put your point of order in the chat box and maybe label it with the letters, PO, so I know that's what you think it is, and we'll try to monitor that.  But I'm monitoring it by myself.  So I want you to know that everything is getting read, but please use it as you need to. 
	And the same for raising your hand.  Make sure you only raise it as appropriate. 
	So that takes care of all that and most of the things we talked about we covered in detail in the other nights and this is our third night so I know some of you will be new to our process.  We'll describe it as we go along. 
	The other items I want to mention is what is coming up in the future.  So tomorrow night will be the constitution and bylaws discussion, we will have John McCann, our constitution and bylaws chair with us.  He will be reviewing two amendments.  The amendments have been circulated, and I think they will be circulated again tomorrow or have been already. 
	I'm not quite following the email, but I know that's the intent.  They will not be voted on tomorrow night because they do require a record vote, so they will be voted on July 5th for the record vote.  But they will be debated fully tomorrow evening. 
	In addition to debating the two motions for amendment of bylaws, we have the two motions on the floor postponed to Friday evening to make it reasonable and easier for us to get the information out to people and make sure that people stay, because it came pretty late in the evening all right and I'm sure some people left because they thought we were done, we worked through our last resolution and we were in good shape.  But then it was moved that we would amend the standing rules so there would be another reading of the resolutions and constitution and bylaws amendments on Wednesday before the -- on Wednesday, July 5th, before the record vote takes place, and that there would be a summary of the discussion of these that would be presented for ten minutes as part of -- or up to ten minutes as a part of that but no debate.  So that -- that is the motion that is pending, and will be debated and discussed tomorrow night.  In addition to the constitution and bylaws. 
	We will be doing the constitution and bylaws first because that's the agenda that is proposed for the evening and then we will be additionally doing -- additionally doing these amendments, and then we'll be wrapping up this part of the business until we convene in Schaumburg and virtually in favor more days. 
	All right.  With that, I'm going to turn the meeting now over to Ray Campbell, our First Vice President, who will conduct the business of the meeting and lead our processes this evening and then I will assist Gabe in terms of the Resolutions Committee.  So thank you, Ray, and Gabe, and thank you, everyone, for coming. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Good evening, ACB, and we will start moving through the resolutions.  I'll just say a couple of things as we get there about debate and some of those things I need to say.  Right now, I'd like to start with the reading of our first resolution so it gives me great pleasure to introduce the chair of the Resolutions Committee.  Chris Bell has his hand up.  Is it a point of order, point of information to talk about, Chris?  If we can allow him to talk, please?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  While we're -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Is that it?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Maybe that's it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Chris wants to know about making a motion.  So go ahead and recognize him. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  He can do that.  Go ahead, Chris. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Yes.  So I'd like to make a motion that has three parts.  And I think it would be more efficient to take them all together, but they could be broken up.  The first part would be to take the last resolution, 2023-16, regarding the ACVREP OT certification and discuss that first because it's complicated, there are a lot of facts, and I think we would do better doing that earlier in the evening rather than the last thing. 
	And secondly, I would like to only with regard to that resolution, provide for a 40-minute debate with no limitation on the number of speakers except by the time limit at the end of the 40 minutes because I think there's a lot to talk about and there are a lot of facts to get out on the ground and five people on each side, I don't think, is going to cut it in terms of shared discussion of the issues. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Chris, so I saw -- I believe, Denise, I believe that would be a valid motion.  However, we would need to have a two-thirds vote to ratify it because that would be considered an amendment to the standing rules. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Suspending the rules. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Does it not take two-thirds to suspend the rule?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So your motion is valid.  However, it would take a two-thirds vote because it essentially is spending the rules and then I would also like you to say as part of that, that once that -- if it's approved, once that resolution is disposed of that the rules go back into effect. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  That is my motion. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That it would be a part of the motion as well. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  So two-thirds, you take the total people voting for and against and figure out two-thirds?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, two-thirds is 66%. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I know it is, but it's 66% of the total voting. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The total voting. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  The total voting, not the total on Zoom not voting. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm getting there.  So Chris Bell has moved a two-part motion -- actually, a three-part motion.  One, that we read and debate 2023-16 first. 
	The second part of his motion is for that particular resolution, we have a 40-minute debate period, and the third part of that motion is that once that resolution is dealt with, that the rules, the standing rules would go back into effect as they are currently written. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I want to add one thing.  It seems to me, putting the resolution 2023-16 is not a rule suspension.  So if I got a majority but not a two-thirds, I think we can still point the -- that resolution first.  Does that make sense?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The resolution first, we can.  The debate period is the -- 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I get that.  But if I don't get two-thirds but I get more than a majority, it seems we could discuss the resolution first even though I lost the other point. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, parliamentarian, what I would like him to do is make two separate motions, one to -- 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Divide the question. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  So my first motion is we take up and debate resolution 2023-16 regarding the ACVREP. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So Chris Bell has moved for ACVREP go first. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  John McCann has seconded it in the chat. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  John McCann has seconded it.  So we need to take a vote on this.  Is there any discussion?  Okay.  We have -- 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  We have some hands. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I think it's self-explanatory, but I do need to allow for questions and explanations.  It's pretty self-explanatory.  We're just moving the order of things.  I will allow questions and clarifications.  Let's take the first, Tori. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Start the timer. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Start the five-minute clock.  Dan?  
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Yes, this is Dan Spoone.  Chris, two points. 
	One, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to your motion, hopefully, but I'm a little worried that people have -- this schedule has been put out and people were planning their evening based on the existing schedule and to move the last resolution to the first resolution without any chance for people to communicate to people who want to participate in that discussion, would you be okay with a friendly resolution -- I get your idea that you don't want it to go last.  Would you be willing to go with a friendly amendment that it go second so people would have an opportunity to make sure and get the word out that this resolution will be discussed earlier in the second?  
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I don't have a problem with a going second, but I don't know how that gets the word out.  If somebody could put a note on leadership and say, hey, we're going to do 2023-16 second, that's one way to get the word out.  I don't have a problem with it going second, but we need to get the word out. 
	>> DAN:  Getting the word out on leadership and conversation probably won't be hard, but it gives people 20 minutes if we were planning on speaking. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I have no problem with the friendly amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Can we accept that as friendly?  Let's unmute John McCann if he has his hand up or you can put it in the Q&A. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  While I'm doing that, Paul has to remind the chat that Chris proposed no limit to the speakers as the other amendment.  That's the other.  Excuse me. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I'm fine, being the friendly amendment.  
	>> DAN SPOONE:  And my other point, I know it's a split, but Chris, just so you're aware, in the existing standing rules, if you finish a 20-minute debate and want to do another 20-minute debate, it only takes a simple majority to extend the time.  So to get your 40 minutes, you're now with this motion creating a higher threshold than you would just to continue the debate in the middle of the resolution. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Thank you. 
	That's very helpful.  I'll try to get the two-thirds and if I don't, I'll come back and do it at the end of the first period if people still want to talk. 
	Think we might need it, too. 
	How are we doing on time, Denise?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  A minute and 53 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have time. 
	Take hands, clarifications.  Is that Debbie?  
	>> I just wonder if in the interests of time we can do like we did in the other meeting. 
	Rather than having everybody unmuted -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No, this is like over 200 people, Deb.  So we could not do that.  Tori would kill me, and we can get all kinds of problems.  Good suggestion, but this is a little bit bigger meeting than this one. 
	>> DEB:  I understand, but how much time is taken with what people are thinking. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> TORI:  Yes, can you all hear me?  I was just wondering, what's -- I came in late.  What's the rationale for moving it?  
	>> CHRIS BELL:  It is amount of discussion and lengthy discussions of the Resolution Committee, this is fairly technical and can be fairly complicated unless you're really into it, and by the end of the night, I, for one, will be too tired and I'd like to move it up to when I'm fresher. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It could be controversial, too.  Denise?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  4, 3, 2, 1. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right. 
	We're going to move to debate and what you're debating is the motion to move resolution 2023-16 to the second on the list for this evening, and we will get the word out if you pass it.  But right now, I'm going to ask, is there anyone who would like to speak against that motion?  Do I have any hands up, Tori?  I'm getting a bunch of them. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Go ahead and open up to five of them so they can identify. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let me know if they're speaking against. 
	Again, we're debating the motion.  First hand, Tori, could you allow them to talk, please. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Tori, are you there?  
	>> TORI:  Steve Bauer is the first. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against, sir?  
	>> STEVE BAUER:  Yes, I am. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Next hand. 
	>> TORI:  Give me a second. 
	Regina Marie.  Are you speaking against the motion?  
	>> REGINA MARIE:  Yes, I am.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The next hand. 
	>> TORI:  Christine Hunsinger. 
	>> CHRISTINE HUNSINGER:  I don't know why we're following the rules when this is a motion to -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  If you read your standing rules, Christine, it says any issue being debated before the assembly has to follow the debate rule. 
	>> CHRISTINE:  Hmm.  A motion?  A motion has to -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It is the motion being debated. 
	>> CHRISTINE:  It is a motion, it's not being debated. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It is a motion.  We're about to debate it.  That's why we're following the rules. 
	>> CHRISTINE:  I think the leadership should clarify that. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead, Denise. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  I missed what the question is. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Since we're not debating a resolution but a motion, I believe per the standing rules as the chair that we need to follow the same debate rules because that's how it's listed about any issue being debated, and Christine is raising a point of order saying we don't have to follow those debate rules. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  No. 
	>> Could just call the question. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It's a motion. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  A late motion. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So we made a motion, seconded.  Now we're about to debate it.  It can be discussed. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Why are we debating it is what she's asking.  Why are we debating it?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Because that is a privilege when someone makes a motion, to debate it, if it's a debatable issue, and it is. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It is a debatable issue.  Thank you. 
	Thank you for that.  We have three so far against.  Are there any others against?  
	>> PENNY:  This is Penny.  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> PENNY:  I'm against the motion. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So four against.  We will have -- yes -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Is Christine speaking?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No, she was raising the point of order.  We only have four, but we don't have any other hands, Denise. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  When you said that before...  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I just asked Tori if we had hands and we had four and I asked if we had any other hands and she didn't see any.  So -- at least I thought I did. 
	Okay.  We have the four people speaking against the motion.  Next let's go to -- all hands down.  Let me know when they're down, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  They should all be down. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Chris Bell will be included, if he wishes to speak.  Anyone for the motion, raise your hand.  Start taking them, Tori, from the top. 
	>> TORI:  Janeen. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Janeen, you're speaking for?  I gotcha.  Next one.  Next hand, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  Kevin LaRose. 
	>> KEVIN LaROSE:  I am speaking for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  And the debate clock hasn't started. 
	>> TORI:  773 phone number. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That sounds like Debbie -- one more.  Who would that be?  Kathy Dawsonn.  Are you speaking for?  
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  And we have our maker plus four against and four for, so that evens things out.  I will say if we have time left at the end of these presentations we will call for other speakers.  Matt Selm was correct in his point of order last night.  All right. 
	So here we go.  So the first one on the list is going to be Chris Bell, if he wishes to speak to his motion. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I would just say this. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Start the clock, Denise, please. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Maybe you can do this as a request for a reasonable accommodation as someone who is 72 years old.  If we're debating this particular issue at 11:30 or 11:40 tonight, I think it's -- I just think it's too complicated for this old guy, anyway, to try to sort everything out and make argument.  I'd just as soon you do it when we're all fresh and alive, which I assume we are now.  That's my rationale. 
	Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  Thank you.  So our first person speaking against is Steve Bauer.  Steve?  
	>> STEVE BAUER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I'm speaking against this motion because I don't deny the importance of it.  I'm 70 years old and I've got a whole spreadsheet going for my convention activities going, and as has been said many times before, many plan their evenings and this could have been done a week ago.  The schedule has been out for a long time and to have it the night we're doing it is absolutely absurd and I strongly object.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Our next person speaking for would be Janeen Lea. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Okay.  I am speaking for because when I was reading this today, I was discussing it with a few other members and this is the first time any of us had heard this acronym.  I don't even know what this is and it's very confusing. 
	I think if we do it earlier there will be more sense made of it and I do think this will be the longest, complicated, and questions.  All that.  I think the other resolutions we have today are kind of straightforward so I think we should just bang it out and get it done.  I do agree with Mr. Spoone that people needed time for it to be told, so I agree with it going second and I would strongly urge this. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The person speaking second is -- Regina Marie.  Go ahead.  
	>> REGINA MARIE:  Speaking of someone who isn't tied to my email, 20 minutes is not enough for me to be notified of a schedule change, and people do plan around this, as Steve said. 
	On the West Coast, many people are just getting off work and are not anywhere near a place to tune in or log on, even if they want to.  There's travel time from work and they may have reasoned that there would be enough time to be home if they wanted to debate this and they will not be, with 20 minutes, trust me, almost everywhere that I know in California, you can't get anywhere for 20 minutes unless you have a driver picking you up.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	Chicago, same thing.  Next person for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Kevin LaRose. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Kevin. 
	>> KEVIN LaROSE:  First of all, I hope we don't go until 11:30 or 11:40.  That would be -- I echo what Janeen said to some degree.  I think that if we do have controversial or amendments -- or not amendments, resolutions, those should get at least preferential treatment because we don't want to be here until the wee hours of the morning.  At least I don't.  So that's what I have to say about it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have somebody had -- with a raised hand.  Is that a point of order?  Christine Delmonico, I think. 
	>> PENNY:  I think Christine should be able to unmute. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Christine, do you want to raise a point of order?  Christy?  You need to unmute.  Otherwise, I'm moving on.  Okay.  I'm moving on.  Okay.  The next person against is -- he lowered it.  Okay.  Penny Moss. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  Okay.  I am speaking against the motion. 
	Can you all hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  Because people do plan around the resolutions, like said earlier, as to when they'll be here, and we all know when we have these evening calls -- I mean, yes, they are long, but I think we have to plan ahead if we can get a little rest or be prepared for those and I'm nearly 70 myself and, you know, with -- it's kind of late for me, but I think we need to keep the resolutions in the order that they're presented.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I need to ask a question, I put somebody in the wrong place.  For Debbie and Kathy, which one of you was speaking against?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Debbie Watson, you were speaking against, right?  
	>> DEBBIE WATSON:  No, I was speaking for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I had Debbie -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  And Kathy, you were speaking against?  There were -- 
	>> I don't think we have another against.  Christine Hunsinger was speaking and we went to Penny, but I don't think Christine was speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Do we have a hand up?  I thought I saw a hand go up. 
	Okay.  We have two more fors. 
	Okay.  So the -- the secretary -- unless I'm corrected, the secretary tells me we have no more against, so we will take one more for so that we keep things even, and if we miss somebody, we do apologize.  Again, we're trying the best we can here.  Count it as an error.  Okay.  Next one -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  It would be Debbie Watson. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Debbie, go ahead.  You can speak for --  
	>> DEBBIE WATSON:  Hi, Ray, and I'll make this brief.  I understand what people are saying that they should have been planned ahead of time.  I understand that.  But I also know that your minds get really fuzzy.  When I read the resolution in day, there were things I hardly understood at myself, and I would rather, for myself, and I think there are many other people who want to be alert so they can vote properly. 
	So I'm voting for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Denise, how much time do we have in debate?  Denise Irminger. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  You have 12 minutes and 37 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We do have one other person who wished to speak for.  Is there anyone who would like to speak against?  Gregg Hollins?  Okay.  Take the first hand, Tori. 
	>> Unmuted from the webinar. 
	>> 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Who is that?  
	>> Kathy Dawsonn. 
	>> TORI:  We have Gregg, who raised his hand. 
	>> GREGG HOLLINS:  I will speak again, Mr. Campbell. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Okay. 
	Okay.  So do we have any other hands up?  
	>> TORI:  We do have one other, yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  And who is that?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  You don't need another person. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Well, I do need -- okay.  You want me to stop?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Take one each. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'll take one each and see if there's any time for additional.  The next against speaker would be Gregg Hollins.  Gregg?  
	>> GREGG HOLLINS:  Yes, sir.  I understand the importance and the -- I'm a techie person, so I understand it's difficult for some techie person.  And I'm not a young person either.  But we have friends in the West Coast, friends in Hawaii, and I know a lot of people still trying to get home from work that are planning their things around it and we're just going to move this up to just satisfy a few folks -- let me apologize for saying that.  I apologize.  But I understand some folks think it should be moved up because of the complexity of the motion. 
	But I don't think it's fair to those folks, like you've heard, people already voiced their opinions on it, out on the West Coast, we're -- East Coast and Central Time here, and those folks, a lot of folks aren't home from work yet.  When we think we're going to get their attention and get them to get somewhere and get their vote and that's not going to happen. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Gregg.  Okay.  We have one more person for and then we're going to check our time.  Kathy Dawsonn, go ahead. 
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  Am I unmuted?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  Okay.  I understand the complexity of this resolution.  I'm sorry, I'm new at this.  But I think it needs to be at the second one. 
	However, next time we do resolutions, I think if it's going to be controversial, they should be put at the first of the meeting at the first of the agenda so they can be questioned first.  Okay?  That's all. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Gotcha down. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Point of order from Janelle. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  She wants to make sure that we're not just always starting at the top of the list to call for names so we get new names.  If there are choices of people who haven't had opportunities rather than same people all the time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, we will do our best. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You commented about starting at the top of the list and she wants to make sure we're not starting at the top of the list each time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I gotcha.  I got your point.  Janelle, we'll do our best.  We can't always control who puts their hands up and I don't want to make it too complicated on our host, so just trying to move things as easy as I can.  Okay. 
	How much time do we have, Denise?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  You've got 8 minutes and 22 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  8 minutes, 22 seconds.  I will say the -- a lot of things have been said several times, but as I indicated earlier, I will ask for additional speakers.  So is there anybody else who would like to speak against, to perhaps offer a different point other than the ones already stated?  
	>> TORI:  Janelle has her hand raised. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> JANELLE:  Hello. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hello, Janelle. 
	>> JANELLE:  I think my point of order was not understood, but anyway, I'm trying to get my phone to quit talking.  But my point is, sometimes we go from the top of the list and sometimes we go for people who are not ever been speaking, but that's not consistent and should we have a policy of doing it one way or the other?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're going to start at the top of the list. 
	That's what we're going to do. 
	That's the fairest way to do it. 
	>> JANELLE:  Okay.  Since we sometimes didn't do that last night, I was just clarifying that that was -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We'll try to get new people in.  I'm not going to tell you -- we're really speaking a lot of time on this, and we just -- move back to -- okay.  So -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Peter Heide is calling for the question. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That cannot be recognized because we're not at the end of 20 minutes yet.  I don't rule that in order at this time.  Okay.  Let's see.  Okay. 
	So is there anyone else wishing to speak against the motion?  And again, I would ask, try to offer a point that has not already been stated.  Otherwise, I would ask you to yield. 
	>> TORI:  We have Veronica. 
	>> VERONICA ELSEA:  Speaking against with a different point of order. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That's one, Veronica.  And we only have eight minutes. 
	>> TORI:  Kathy Blackburn. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Kathy Blackburn. 
	>> KATHY BLACKBURN:  Yes, I would like to speak against also. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's two against and we've got about eight minutes or so to go.  I'm going to take one more against and then we'll take some -- see where we are. 
	>> TORI:  The only hand I say is Kathryn Dawsonn, who has already spoken. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are there two that would like to speak for this motion?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair, the hands can come up pretty fast.  I don't think you need to wait long for the hands. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  I'd like to speak against it.  I have a totally different perspectives. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Three people against.  Now, I'm going to ask for another three people who would like to speak for. 
	Would anybody like to speak for?  
	>> TORI:  We have a Deb. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Deb.  Deb, go ahead.  Are you speaking for?  Come on, Deb.  Let's either unmute or we're going on.  All right.  We'll move on, Tori. 
	There's one.  There you are. 
	>> DEB:  I'm here. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is that Deb?  
	>> DEB:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking for?  
	>> DEB:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Gotcha. 
	Anybody else want to speak for?  
	>> TORI:  I don't see any other hands. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  One for and three people against.  Who was my last speaker, was that Gregg or Kathy?  
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  Kathy. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm going to take one against and one for and we'll see where we're at with time.  Okay?  I will call on Veronica. 
	>> VERONICA ELSEA:  First of all, we probably could have -- the time that we've spent doing this.  I keep hearing, we don't want to be here at 11:30.  We don't want to be here at 11:40. 
	If we start with a longer resolution, we're still going to be here at 11:30 or 11:40, and it has almost the look of favoritism, this one is more important, this one is -- you never know the way the script works who is going to be controversial and who isn't. 
	And I think it really needs to do -- it looks unfair.  I would be upset if my resolution were dissed because everybody said we're going to squeeze this in and give you priority.  I just don't think it looks good. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Next person speaking for. 
	Okay.  Deb. 
	>> DEB:  It sets a -- an important resolution -- it's such an important resolution to the older ones and those in need of competent service and I think the earlier we talk about it, the better it is. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Denise, how am I doing on time?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  For all the there are six minutes and 30 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I still have two people against but I don't have anybody speaking for. 
	I'm going to click one last call and ask if anybody wishes to speak for this motion.  And again, please, if you're going to do it, try to offer something that has not been said.  I'm hearing a lot of noise.  Nora, did you want to speak to this motion?  
	>> NORA:  Yes, I -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hold your thought, what you're going to say.  I don't see any other hands. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Ray, there are a lot of people asking if we can stop debate in less than 20 minutes if we've had a lot of speakers. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No, the standing rules do not say anything about a speaker limit. 
	I got in trouble for that last night.  I'm trying to following the standing rules.  So we have Nora.  That was the only hand that I saw.  So then Tori didn't tell me differently.  So now I'm going to take one against, who I believe is Casey.  Is that correct?  
	>> KATHY BLACKBURN:  Kathy Blackburn.  Kathy. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead. 
	>> KATHY BLACKBURN:  Veronica made my point exactly. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Nora?  
	>> NORA:  I understand a lot of people take more time for work but those who are home, tired or something, need to work on this earlier, so I vote for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So we have one person still out there against.  I'm going to make -- I'm going to make this last call.  Is there anybody else who would like to speak for?  Okay.  Hearing no hands and we've already heard more fors than against, so to keep things even, we can do one more for and against.  So I'm going to declare that the debate is completed and we will now proceed to the vote.  Again, what you're voting on is the motion to make 2023-16 the second resolution that we discuss this evening.  All those in favor of that motion, please raise your hand.  And this takes a simple majority. 
	>> NANCY:  Ray, we are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All hands down, please.  Tori, would you lower all hands, please. 
	>> TORI:  All hands should be down. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All hands are down.  All those wishing to vote against the motion to move 2023-16 to the second resolution we discuss, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Counts, please. 
	>> TORI:  Those voting for, 74. 
	Those voting against, 125, and there are 250 participants in Zoom. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The motion fails.  So the motion 
-- the motion fails.  So 2023-16 will be discussed in the order it was originally presented on the schedule.  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Peter Heide has a parliamentary inquiry, he thinks calling for the question is always in order and would ask for clarification from the parliamentarian. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Denise, would you read that rule, please, 1b, I believe.  I can get them up too if need be. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Is that in the voting?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It's under item 1b, talks about issues being debated on the floor. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Ray, I apologize.  Okay.  In the bylaws?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No, it's in the standing rules, Denise. 
	>> TORI:  Are you talking about debates on the merit of the issue?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> TORI:  If you're okay, Denise, I can read it.  Debate on the merits of the issue shall begin at the end of the five minute period for points of clarification.  Each debatable issue before the convention shall be limited to approximately 20 minutes with a two-minute limit per speaker, alternating between affirmative and opposing speaker unless a majority of the members agree to extend the debate for an additional period of time. 
	Speakers shall not be recognized for purposes of seeking points of clarification.  Each member is respectfully urged to speak directly to the issue before the assembly and avoid unnecessary and time-consuming dialogue.  No member will be recognized a second time to debate until all who wish to debate have been recognized.  Motions to close debate will not be recognized by the chair during the first debate period. 
	After the first debate period properly moved motion such as "I call for the question" or "I move the previous question" will be handled by the chair and voted on by the assembly.  The chair will close debate when no one seeks the floor or when there has been no more speaker on one side of the issue than the other and no speaker on the side of the issue with the lesser number of speakers seeks the floor.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So I think that clears that up. 
	Basically, during the first 20-minute period, we do not recognize motions to close debate.  That's our standing rules.  That's what you adopted. 
	Okay.  So we will take -- could we get Chris Bell, Chris Bell, could you raise your hand?  I'd like to ask you a question. 
	I'm going to ask Chris a question. 
	>> TORI:  You should be able to unmute. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Chris, in the interests of time, could I ask you to -- let's see how the debate goes on 16 and if you are -- if we are still minded at the end of the 20 minutes that we vote -- we do a motion to extend debate -- 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I agree completely.  I think we should move on. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Chris.  Okay.  We will then move to the first resolution of the evening, and I will introduce Gabe Griffith, the resolutions chair to tell us about it. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  There we go. 
	There's my mute button.  Hello, everybody, and I think our first resolution for tonight is 2023-13, submitted to us by Guillermo Robles and Steve Bauer and California council of the blind.  Resolution 2023-13 Ride-sharing and communication.  Submitted by:  Guillermo Robles, Steve Bauer and the California Council of the Blind.  
Whereas, on-demand transportation services such as Lyft and Uber have had an extremely positive impact on the independence of people who are blind or have low vision across the country; and, 
Whereas, the use of these services requires effective, direct, and clear communication between driver and passenger; and 
Whereas, a passenger who is blind or has low vision is negatively impacted by language barriers and absence of verbal communication; and 
Whereas, the lack of effective, direct, and clear communication has resulted in the following:  Unmet requests for a driver to communicate verbally to the passenger of their presence and to identify their location; Failure of a driver to follow passenger instructions; Passengers being dropped off in incorrect and often unsafe locations.  
Now, therefore be it resolved by the American Council of the Blind in convention assembled that this organization initiate discussion with said service providers to seek changes in the service platform in order to allow passengers who are blind or have low vision to communicate their preferred language and to ensure that drivers who may take their ride requests are limited to those who speak the preferred language of the passenger who is blind or has low vision.  End of Resolution 2023-13.  
[Reading in Spanish] 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Before we get to the motion, my apologies to Steve.  I had missed his name on there.  The Resolutions Committee moves it do pass, and I will submit. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The Resolutions Committee has moved a do pass.  Is Guillermo Robles, Steve Bauer, or someone else representing California?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I know Guillermo Robles is on here. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're now starting the five-minute period. 
	Any questions or clarifications that anyone has.  We have Guillermo.  What's the next hand?  Karyn Campbell. 
	>> KARYN CAMPBELL:  Okay.  My question, how would this be implemented?  I don't see any way to implement something like this. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Guillermo, would you like to address this question?  
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  At this point I didn't give any clear instruction as to how to implement it because I think that this is something that we can work through the various committees that would have interest in this, so -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Right. 
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  So I can see different ways of implementation and if passed I would certainly be involved in the dialogue and ensuring that we have adequate implementation. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Yeah, the top -- for something like this, would definitely require -- [Overlapping speakers.] 
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  I could see something like the transportation or, you know, could -- 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Could be different channels. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Maps gets changed all the time. 
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  It was meant to be brought.  This is a pretty broad conversation that needs to be had. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The next question. 
	>> TORI:  Sheila Styron. 
	>> SHEILA STYRON:  You do mention that we have a right to effective communication, but the resolution itself comes to the point that we would just be -- people could be requesting their preferred language and I think that that seems a little exclusive and is a little bit missing the point of the ADA that communication needs to be effective, not just your preferred language.  And I know we as people who are blind and low vision have some additional issues in communicating with drivers, but many other populations also have difficulty because their preferred or one known language isn't spoken by both the driver and themselves. 
	So this makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable that this is what we're -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're getting into debating the resolution there, so I'm going to stop you right there. 
	>> SHEILA STYRON:  I'm done. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Another hand. 
	>> TORI:  Casey. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Casey. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  I was going to say the same thing, did they work with a multicultural committee to make sure the wording wasn't quite so divisive or what is the process going to be?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'll just say that Guillermo has done a lot of work with them on other things, so -- do you want to address this, does somebody want to address this?  
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  I feel personally that the -- original resolution was a lot stronger than it is -- or than this is. 
	And I don't mean this to offend or to minimize -- to offend anybody culturally.  That's not my intent.  I come at this from a safety standpoint, first and foremost, and secondly, from more user-friendly perspective living -- well, I can address a lot of that.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Mr. Chair. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  If I may, I can say in committee, we really did try -- this resolution did change quite a bit from what it was when it was first submitted in California and again once it came to ACB, and we really did try to keep it aimed at the communication than any kind of cultural thing. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Denise, how are we doing on our time?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  8, 7 -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right. 
	Time.  All right.  So we will now move to debate on this issue, and -- we will -- let's keep -- Guillermo, I should say, [indiscernible]. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Gave Gabe permission to talk. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The first thing I'm going to ask is, and the clock isn't starting yet, anyone wishing to speak against this resolution, please raise your hand.  Tori, start at the top, see who we have.  We can have up to five. 
	>> TORI:  We have Jean Mann. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jean, are you speaking against?  We need you to unmute and tell us if you're speaking against. 
	Moving on. 
	>> TORI:  Sharon. 
	>> SHARON STRZALKOWSKI:  I'd like to speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You'll be our first against.  Next one. 
	>> TORI:  Niral. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Niral, are you going to speak against?  
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  Yes, I am. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's two. 
	Next. 
	>> TORI:  Dorene. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against, Dorene?  
	>> DORENE:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Any more?  
	>> TORI:  Sandy. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sandy, are you going to speak against?  You need to unmute and let us know that.  
	>> SANDY RUCONICH:  Yes, I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We'll take one more, we may have a chance for more. 
	>> TORI:  Viola. 
	>> SANDY RUCONICH:  I wanted to speak for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hold your thought.  We'll put you down as the first one for, then.  Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against?  
	>> TORI:  Jeanette. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against?  
	>> CHRIS BELL:  This is Chris. 
	I got unmuted.  But I'm not Jeanette. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We like you, but we didn't want to do that. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I want to speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jeanette, we'll see if we need you to get five to speak against.  Is there anyone -- get them down.  Anyone who would like to speak for the resolution?  And we already have Viola speaking for. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So there are actually two makers for this resolution, just FYI. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Well, we've only taken one usually. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  This one specifically has two. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Well, the other maker wishes to -- do we have any other in mind?  We have Viola on the mind to speak against.  Four, yeah. 
	>> TORI:  We have Donna Pomerantz. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Donna, are you speaking for?  
	>> DONNA:  I wish to speak in favor. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> TORI:  We have Debbie Hazelton. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I will speak in favor.  That's three, four, so we can take two more. 
	>> TORI:  We have Megan. 
	>> MEGAN MEIGS:  This is Megan. 
	I would like to speak for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's for. 
	Let's count one more for. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Are you counting Guillermo on that?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  You were at four already. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  What did you say, Denise?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  You have him plus four already. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have five against.  So I can take one more. 
	>> TORI:  Linda. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Linda, do you wish to speak for the motion -- the resolution?  I'm sorry.  Linda, you need to -- folks, unmute as quickly as you can. 
	>> LINDA FAUSTW:  Am I unmuted?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, you are. 
	>> LINDA FAUSTW:  For. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So we have five for and five against and that does not count -- we're going to give the maker a chance to speak first on this.  Denise, if you'll start the clock, I will call on Guillermo Robles as the maker of the resolution to speak. 
	>> GUILLERMO ROBLES:  Good evening, everybody, and thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.  Living in a very big metropolitan city as Los Angeles is, we have a huge melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities here. 
	And as often as I take Lyft, it has been extremely challenging, to say the least, because there are different ethnicities, it becomes hard when you make certain requests made in the one where I currently live where you have to give specific directions as to how to get into this condo building, it becomes pretty frustrating.  So I have visited several apps where you're given your language preference, and you have different customization as to how you wish to have that experience translated.  So, you know, I would just say that this resolution would sort of aim to cut down on a lot of the frustration.  You may have to wait in some instances to be matched up with the driver that would speak your language, but if it gets you to a place where you need to be safely, I think that's what is important.  So I would really encourage you to really think about safety ramifications of this rather than the cultural aspect of it, and I do appreciate your vote. 
	Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	Thank you, Guillermo.  The first speaker against is -- Sharon. 
	>> SHARON STRZALKOWSKI:  Hi. 
	Okay.  I think you could wait a long time to get an English-speaking driver, from my experience, and I get it.  I have felt if not unsafe sometimes, maybe in a point of confusion.  But between Google Translate and generally the goodwill of the driver to get you where you want to be and the platform isn't set up for this sort of thing.  I would be not in favor. 
	Also, how do you distinguish how much English you have to have?  You know, if a driver can speak a little bit of English, is that enough?  Do they -- you know, what does that mean?  And would they have to put something on their profile that would say, no, I can't speak somebody who needs total English?  I don't know.  I just don't think it's workable, and it seems we could manage most of the time to get around it.  If you had AIRA or Be My Eyes and we're really having a problem, engage them with the person. 
	Anyway, I see it as something that's not going to happen. 
	Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	Viola, you can -- you're next.  
	>> VIOLA BENTSON:  I'm a little bit nervous.  I don't usually speak for or against anything, but I have been in that situation, at a point where I couldn't understand the driver at all.  I was by myself.  And I got dropped off in the wrong place in the wrong -- he couldn't understand me and I couldn't understand him.  I just -- I don't know how they could do it.  They might have to change their app a little bit or change -- I don't know what the ramifications of that would be, but there has to be a way to do that.  I just -- it's not safe, as a blind person, I wouldn't do it.  I started taking them less, especially in Seattle. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Next person against.  Niral. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  Okay.  The first concept is okay.  However. 
	It can be very offensive to people.  Secondly, yes, you could be waiting for rides for a while.  Now, there are a couple of things that have been -- is it worrying the person.  First of all, the metropolitan areas, people that -- rather than specify the language, specify your disabilities, saying your visually impaired.  Right there, they're aware.  Okay.  And that is self- -- getting someone that is more willing to work with you. 
	But again, at the same time, languages can be very offensive, waiting for rides for a long time, have problems finding a ride in rural and certain areas. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  All right.  The next person speaking for. 
	>> TORI:  Donna Pomerantz. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Donna. 
	>> DONNA:  Good evening, everyone.  I wish to speak in favor of this resolution as someone who is Latina, someone who is Spanish-speaking, someone who lived in an area with many, many different cultures that surround me that I embrace.  And the original resolution, my concern when it was originally brought forward in California was not only do we have language issues, but we also have issues of, if we don't know if people don't hear us very well.  And, you know, the concern, people will say, yes, yes, yes, so we take them on good faith.  They say yes, yes, yes, but they didn't hear us, and we have no way of knowing they didn't hear us, they're just wishing to be polite. 
	So the language in this resolution now, I believe, would be able to be all-inclusive. 
	Accommodations of language, accommodations of hearing. 
	Because it talks about effective communication.  Which is inclusive of language and hearing, et cetera.  I really -- it is absolutely a safety issue, and I don't believe we who are blind and visually impaired need to take the concern of possibly unintentionally offending someone over our safety.  Safety first, please, for each and every one of us.  No one means to offend.  It isn't always possible.  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're at time.  Next person speaking against. 
	>> TORI:  Dorene Cornwell. 
	>> DORENE:  Thank you, I agree, people say yes, yes, yes.  I have officially studied two other languages and I have done that.  I'll be saying the equivalent of yes, yes, yes. 
	And it doesn't say to what is going on.  It is saying, yes, I pretend to understand.  So I have two concerns.  One, you have already raised about a long-time wait.  I think we're introducing a possibility of discrimination based on nationality that we don't want to introduce.  I kind of -- I'm kind of going back and forth.  I think, yeah, if you're a customer and you'd like to have somebody speak your own language for 57 reasons, the app should give you that option. 
	My other concern is implementation.  Do there end up being additional local rules and conditions where these services operate.  The safety concerns, I have to tell you I hear some of the same safety concerns about being dropped off in the wrong place from those who ride paratransit.  So I don't think the thing to do here is to propose a substitute resolution but I don't know if we can get to amending tonight and I don't actually want to try, but the resolution that states some standards of safety, standards of communication, and then is a tool, people talking at senior management level, people talking locally, when your healthcare provider contracts with Uber and Lyft, here are some standards we need them to meet.  I would love a process or resolution that gets us to that.  So I kind of -- 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> DORENE:  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Next speaking for. 
	>> TORI:  Debbie Hazelton. 
	>> DEBBIE HAZELTON:  I think this is very serious.  I hear what everybody is saying about implementation, but from a safety standpoint, I've been in situations where I have been put with somebody who doesn't speak English when I've asked for assistance in a store.  I've been dropped off at the wrong location by drivers who don't speak English or by drivers who are deaf.  That's really interesting. 
	I think from a safety standpoint we need to take this seriously, and maybe it's something that happens with training and standards that, you know, drivers who speak need to be able to speak English or speak English well enough so even if they have an accent they can be understood.  I've also heard medical professionals just say yes, yes, yes.  And I've heard people with disabilities get that yes, yes, yes, from other people, when people don't understand them.  So this is a larger issue around communication but extremely important when it comes to safety and transit.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Debbie.  Next person speaking against would be -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Sandy. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sandy.  Sandy, go ahead. 
	>> SANDY RUCONICH:  Okay.  Thank you.  My mute and unmute keeps going away.  I'm speaking against this resolution as a fairly frequent rider of Lyft. 
	I probably use Lyft three to four times a week.  I don't -- maybe this is just how it's handled here, but if the driver is Deaf, I get a note indicating that the driver is Deaf, so at least I know what I'm dealing with.  But my main concern is the driver, the driver doesn't know unless I put a note in that I am blind or that I -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Keep going, Sandy.  Linda, you need to mute. 
	>> SANDY RUCONICH:  That I might need help of some kind.  If I want to tell the driver that, I have to write a note.  And unfortunately, the way the current Lyft platform is set up, the only way I can write a note is to use the keyboard.  It doesn't work to dictate the message.  So right offhand, that's a problem.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm very slow when I have to do it via the keyboard.  So I understand the points being made, but I think this resolution needs to be modified in some ways to -- particularly to ask Lyft, perhaps, to make a language preference as a part of their forum and also to make sure that a message can be dictated if we want to write a message. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Time.  The next person speaking is Megan. 
	That's why I have you here. 
	>> MEGAN MEIGS:  I'm speaking as the mother of a toddler about how crucial this really is.  As a woman, yes, it's nerve-racking when you can't speak with the driver or you don't think they understand you.  I've been dropped off without my toddler across the street and down the street from where I was told I was.  When you're by yourself, you can use AIRA or Be My Eyes but it's crucial to communicate with your driver simple things. 
	When -- wrong conversations, but simple things like, is this the door, when you walk to the door to the building, not be able to understand what I'm asking.  And so I just think that we're not -- we're not even specifying for people who are worried about it being offensive.  We're not saying they have to speak English.  I'm saying this is actually good for people who are not comfortable with English themselves, they can request a language of their driver if they are comfortable speaking Spanish and not English themselves, they can request that.  I just think it's a very crucial safety thing that it's -- I would shall rather wait for 20 minutes to know I'm going to get someplace safely with my toddler than to be dropped off who knows where and not be able to safely get where I need to go with my son. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Next last person speaking against for this point of view. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Jeanette. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jeanette. 
	Jeanette, go ahead. 
	>> TORI:  It was Chris Bell. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I'm speaking against.  I think there are a number of problems with this resolution.  One is, it isn't particularly unique to blind people.  Now, I hear the safety issue, and my response to the safety issue, as far as I know, you can only do ride-shares if you have a Smartphone.  So if we have a Smartphone, we have a number of options available to us to see where we are.  Google Maps or -- the other one, I can't remember now.  Be My Eyes, there are some things we can use to identify where we are and to get visual help to see where we are.  Other than that, safety issue, I really think this isn't a blindness issue.  I think it will reduce the number of drivers available generally on these types of companies. 
	Number one, it makes the whole process more complicated because when the driver has to -- if the driver knows that you only want somebody that speaks English and they're not sure, oh, gee, how long do I speak English?  And then they have the issue of, well, if I say I speak English but they decide I don't speak English, am I going to get into a fight?  I don't necessarily mean a physical fight, but it's hard enough to drive people around without inviting a disagreement about whether one's language preference is being met because, you know, I don't think they speak English well enough and they think they do.  So I just think this is a can of worms that shouldn't be -- shouldn't be opened.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  And Linda.  Speaking for.  Linda, go ahead. 
	>> LINDA FAUSTW:  Okay.  I've had instances where I didn't get let off at the correct place and I -- I'm also hearing impaired, so I don't do very well with people that have accents, even something at the convention here, you know, with -- I couldn't understand because of the hearing impairment what they were saying.  So anyway, I understand -- I also live with [indiscernible], and there are people who are drivers that don't speak or understanding the language.  You know, it's a matter of -- if I say, I need to get off at a certain exit at the senior center, I'd like to know that I'm going to be let off at that entrance before they take off, so that's where I'm coming from. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Denise Irminger 16 -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're about to run out of time.  I'll let Denise run it down here.  So do we want to have any additional debate on this issue, we would need to have a motion to extend the debate time.  I'm not going to tell you how to vote, but we've heard quite a few good points.  Is anyone minded to make a motion to extend the debate?  Do we have any hands, Tori?  
	>> TORI:  No.  Yes, we do.  We have one. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We do have one hand.  This is democracy, folks. 
	It takes time.  It's messy.  But it's the best government we have.  Janae, I think you can unmute.  Janae, going once. 
	Janae, going twice.  Moving on. 
	>> JANAE MILLER:  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Just got in there. 
	>> JANAE MILLER:  When you say that, it takes a minute for Zoom to keep up.  Keep pressing alt A, and I keep pressing alt A. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you minded to make a motion to extend debate?  
	>> JANAE MILLER:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there someone minded to second that motion?  Are there any hands, Tori?  
	>> TORI:  People are raising and then lowering them. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Only raise your hand at this moment if you want to second the motion to extend debate.  Okay.  Do we have -- can you take the first one?  
	>> TORI:  David Tanner. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Dave Tanner, would you like to second the motion to extend debate?  
	>> DAVID:  Yes, I would. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You'd like to extend debate.  We have a motion and a second.  Denise, parliamentarian, point of clarification.  The motion to extend debate is not debatable is that correct?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  It's not debatable. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The motion itself not debatable. 
	So we're going to proceed to the vote.  So all hands down, please.  And this would be more an additional 20 minutes.  Up to 20 minutes.  I'm sorry.  To make sure we're clear.  All hands down. 
	>> No, we still have a couple of hands up.  Okay.  Let us lower your hands. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  There's a question, how long are you extending debate. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I just said up to 20 minutes, which is the standing rule.  I did apologize if I didn't say that.  Okay. 
	All those wishing to vote in favor for extending the debate on this resolution for up to an additional 20 minutes, please raise your hand. 
	Deb, do you have any announcements while we're doing this?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Probably shouldn't because -- you need to be paying attention to the facts that there are these great bundles available for the mini mall.  So if you want to get a really good deal on a nice bag and some good stuff in it, depending on which bundle there is, there are two different bundles available for purchase. 
	There are other things as well. 
	But two kinds of packages that make a good combination together, and so you can check out that at the mini mall and it's a great way to look like you support ACB and actually be doing it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  
	>> NANCY:  We are settled, Ray. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All hands lowered, please.  Lower all hands.  I'm sorry. 
	>> All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We are the official word up here.  All voting against the motion to extend the debate up to an additional 20 minutes on resolution 2023-13, please raise your hand.  If you are against extending debate, please raise your hand.  Deb, anything else?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Well, getting a little feedback that they wish I wouldn't do this, but the reason we do so we have continuity in people so they know what's happening and I'm only doing it during the longer hand-raising times to let you know about some of the opportunities that we have at ACB.  So this is good.  And I saw today that there was a note that the Braille Forum raffle tickets are almost gone.  So if you haven't purchased your Braille Forum raffle ticket, you need to get them done because I don't think we'll have any by the time we get to Schaumburg and you can do that in collaboration with others and they have some fabulous cash prizes that they're going to be drawing for for the Braille Forum raffle, so could be good for you and your affiliate. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I wonder how many Allen has sold.  He usually sells quite a few. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled, Ray. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I will go to Nancy with the counts. 
	>> NANCY:  The count is for this motion, 11.  Against the motion, is 199 and there were 261 people in Zoom during the vote. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  The motion to extend debate has failed, so we will go to the vote.  Lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Tori, I can get the panelists here.  It has to be done manually.  I'll take care of the panelists tonight. 
	>> TORI:  Okay. 
	>> NANCY:  One second here.  All hands are down, Ray. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All those wishing to vote in favor of resolution 2023-13, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  Ray, we have settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  No, we're not okay. 
	Hands keep coming up.  So if you can take your hands away from any screens or computers you have.  Thank you.  Now, just a minute.  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Folks, that may be a Zoom thing too. 
	Sometimes it happens.  Anyway -- all those wishing to vote against resolution 2023-13, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I will take the vote counts, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Those for the resolution were 121.  Those against was 86 and there are 261 participants in the Zoom room during the vote. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So the resolution passes 121-86.  Is there anyone who voted in the minority, the lower number, that would like a record vote?  Please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  Okay.  We have settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  What's our count?  
	>> NANCY:  31. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It takes 25 to get a record vote, we have 31. 
	Therefore, we will go to a record vote on 2023-13 on July 5th.  Okay.  Next resolution please, Mr. Chair. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Okay.  The next one comes to us from Guide Dog Users Inc., a resolution 2023-14.  
	>> 2023-14 Ride-Share Denials of Service to Guide Dog Users Submitted by Guide Dog Users, Inc.  
Whereas, ever since the ride-share companies began making rides available to the general public, guide dog users have experienced denials of service from drivers who refused to provide service to individuals who are accompanied by guide dogs; and 
Whereas, despite many complaints having been filed with the ride-share companies, as well as with the U.S. Department of Justice over many years, and despite legal actions having been taken by blind and low vision individuals who have been denied service, as well as by organizations representing people with disabilities, and despite settlements having been reached, ride-share drivers persist in discriminating against guide dog users by denying them service; and 
Whereas, Guide Dog Users, Inc. (GDUI) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) recently conducted an online survey asking members to report any denial-of-service complaints filed with the ride-share companies and with the U.S. Department of Justice between November 11 and December 31, 2022, which found that 80 individual complaints had been filed over a period of just six weeks; and 
Whereas, on January 31, 2023, GDUI and ACB shared these survey results which confirm continued and ongoing discrimination by ride-share drivers against survey respondents.  GDUI and ACB asked the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice to conduct a pattern of practice investigation, and receipt of the request was acknowledged by the department.  
Now therefore, be it resolved by the American Council of the Blind in convention assembled that the American Council of the Blind and its affiliate, Guide Dog Users, Inc.  request that the U.S. Department of Justice judiciously determine whether the ongoing lack of effective action by ride-share companies to prevent drivers from denying service to guide dog users equals a discriminatory pattern of practice, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and Be it further resolved that GDUI and ACB strongly urge the U.S. Department of Justice to take immediate action to address this ongoing pattern of illegal discrimination.  End of Resolution 2023-14.  
[Reading in Spanish]   
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Okay.  The Resolutions Committee recommends it do pass and I will so move. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  First of all, I'm going to ask, is there a representative of GDUI that would be available to speak to this resolution and take answers that may come forward?  Sarah Calhoun or anyone from GDUI?  And that -- okay.  Well, let's start taking hands, then, and we are now -- we started with -- this starts our five minutes for questions and clarification, and -- so let's take the first one, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  Debbie Persons. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Debbie, what is your question?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sarah Calhoun raised her hand.  Debbie Persons, we're waiting to hear from her. 
	>> Debbie Persons:  I did not raise my hand. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No problem. 
	Let's find Sarah Calhoun. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Melanie is here too. 
	>> Do you have any other -- 
	>> TORI:  Richard Villa. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You're there. 
	>> RICHARD:  My question is, what kind of resolution -- it -- tell the Department of Justice, hey, this happens.  If you're going to get it resolved, you're going to have to have some kind of a penalty or some kind of legislation passed to get these people to comply.  That's my wonder. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sarah or Melanie, would you like to speak to that?  
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  I'm not sure I understand the question. 
	At this point we -- the -- we've tried everything else and if the Justice Department is being the place within the government that has the clout to do something, if they -- if they find that there is a pattern of practices that are discriminatory and therefore we want them to make the investigation. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah.  That's kind of what I thought.  The real sense of the resolution is, if I'm correct, that you -- a request has been made, it's been acknowledged, and the resolution is really saying, let's move on with the investigation.  Okay. 
	Next, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  We have Jennifer Bolling. 
	>> JENNIFER BOLLING:  Can you hear me?  My name was up after the previous person asked a question, and I believe very proposed my question.  My question is basically what is the purpose of this and how is it going to further things along. 
	I am a guide dog user.  I am for this.  But I need to know what more actions can be taken. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I think we answered that in the previous statement, so thank you. 
	>> JENNIFER BOLLING:  I apologize.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No problem. 
	Penny Reeder. 
	>> PENNY REEDER:  I had my hand up before Melanie.  I would add in answer to Richard's question, the Department of Justice has received numerous, numerous complaints.  Every one of them received a canned reply and that's how we came to this. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Denise, how are we going on time?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  You have a minute and 50 seconds. 
	>> TORI:  We have a 206 phone number. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  What's it ending in, please?  
	>> TORI:  364. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  206 ending in 364, what is your question?  If you can get unmuted, star 6. 
	I'm going to move on.  One more time.  Penny Moss.  What is your question, Penny?  Penny, you need to unmute. 
	Let's try to be as quick at this as we can.  There you go. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  The question is, I'm not a dog user and I'm asking for information, clarification.  Are these drivers, they're independent drivers, are they not?  Are they considered independent entities.  So my question, since they are independent, can we actually enforce them to take dogs if they are independent drivers?  That's all I'm asking. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  This is Chris. 
	Can I answer that?  
	>> TORI:  Please. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I think in most cases they'll be classified as independent contractors.  Here's the deal.  Under the ADA since we're talking about public accommodations, so the pattern of practice is against the transportation network companies, so Lyft or Uber, it says no matter what your policies say against service animal discrimination, the pattern of practice creates a presumption that you actually have a policy favoring discrimination.  So that's what the pattern and practice is with regard to liability.  With regard to the individual drivers, there is a provision, Title V in the ADA, that prohibits harassment, obstruction, interference with or retaliation against somebody seeking to offer action -- so in theory, the Department of Justice could go after individual drivers.  There is a question as to whether or not they would, but I think in theory, they could, under that provision of Title V. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We have hit time in our question clarification, so we will now move to debate on this resolution.  2023-14, just to remind everyone, we will have an initial debate period of up to 20 minutes with two minutes per speaker allowed.  So before we start that clock, is there anyone wishing to speak against this resolution?  Please raise your hands. 
	>> NANCY:  Ray?  I don't know if I'm moderator here but I have Clark who has his hand raised and I don't know what that's pertaining to. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I definitely would -- Clark, did you want to add some context round this as our advocacy and governmental affairs director?  
	>> CLARK RACHFAL:  This is Clark, I show my hand as lowered.  I don't have anything to add. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right. 
	Thank you.  Zoom is being a little bit quirky tonight.  No problem.  Who is our first hand?  
	>> FRAN SINE:  Yes, I understand the frustration. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against or more?  
	>> FRAN SINE:  I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's all we're asking now.  Lining everybody up.  Do we have anybody else?  
	>> TORI:  We have Debbie Hazelton. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Debbie Hazelton, are you speaking against?  
	>> DEBBIE HAZELTON:  Yes, I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's two. 
	Do we have anyone else?  
	>> TORI:  I don't see any other hands. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Lower all hands, then, and Sarah or Melanie, I will let you decide which of you or both of you to speak on this, usually have one person speak, but we'll -- 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  I'll defer to Sarah since she's president if she wants to.  This is Melanie.  
	>> SARAH CALHOUN:  This is Sarah.  Actually, Melanie, if you want to do this, since you're chair, I would be very grateful.  I have some health issues going on, so -- thanks, Melanie. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Melanie will be our first speaker once we start the debate as representing the maker, GDUI.  Do we have anyone else wishing to speak for?  
	>> TORI:  We have Terrie. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're going to take two.  Terrie Terlau, did you want to speak for?  I'm going to move on since we're not hearing from you.  Next person. 
	>> TORI:  Jewel. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you wishing to speak for, Jewel?  
	>> TERRIE TERLAU:  Forgive me, this is Terrie.  I would like to speak for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Jewel, did you wish to speak for?  Okay.  Jewel?  Calling one more time for Jewel. 
	The next person. 
	>> TORI:  Deanna Noriega. 
	>> DEANNA NORIEGA:  Yes.  Jewel didn't look like she was allowed to talk.  Did she?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're going to stop there.  We have two against and three for.  I'll ask for other speakers once they've had their chance to present so we're following all the rules.  So we're going to now move in to start the clock on our initial up to 20 minutes of debate.  So the first person to be recognized is Melanie Brunson. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for speaking with us and hearing us out on this.  Basically, the resolution is pretty self-explanatory.  Guide dog users have been dealing with this problem for a number of years.  It's a nationwide problem.  And both ride-share companies are very aware of it. 
	They both have in place policies that they say that they do not want their drivers to discriminate and that they will take action when they fail to pick up passengers based on their having a guide dog.  They have -- they have policies in place that protect the rights of drivers to actually are allergic, so that isn't an issue.  But the fact of the matter is, regardless of the policies and regardless of the fact that the companies have been sued, they have been taken to arbitration, both ACB and NFB and guide dog users affiliates have met with the companies and talked with them.  We've done everything that we know how to do, including filing complaints, although it's hard to get people to file complaints with the Department of Justice because people don't want to rock the boat.  But the fact of the matter is, we did collect 80 complaints last year during the six-week period from people all over the country and sent those to DOJ, and they have them. 
	What we're asking them to do is do more than look at them. 
	Investigate the problem and help us by taking some action.  And what we're asking you to do is to support us. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  In this effort.  Thanks. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There we go. 
	Okay.  Thanks, Melanie.  Next person to speak against, that would be Fran Sine.  There you go.  Go ahead, Fran.  You're unmuted.  
	>> FRAN SINE:  Okay.  So -- don't listen to that.  
	>> FRAN SINE:  Sorry.  I understand your frustration.  I have a lot of friends with guide dogs.  But you cannot force people to put a dog in their vehicle, or any animal in their vehicle if they're allergic. 
	You just can't do that.  I don't see -- all this -- I mean, you just can't force them.  And all the rules and rules and -- hand-slapping and everything you can do, but when it comes down to it, when the rubber hits the road, if I'm allergic to dogs, they're not getting in my car, and that's all there is to it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next person speaking for -- 
	>> TORI:  Terrie Terlau.  
	>> TERRIE TERLAU:  Thanks.  I would -- I'm speaking for this resolution because there have been numerous allowances made by Uber and Lyft for drivers who have legitimate allergy reasons for not having a dog in their vehicle.  Also, the requirements from the guide dog handlers is dogs are groomed and dogs are on the floor, not on the seat.  A ride-share driver would be well within his or her rights to refuse a guide dog that jumps up in the seat because that is not the legal way in which a guide dog is supposed to be in a ride-share vehicle.  Given that, I have been in situations where one day I had three refusals in a row.  It is sometimes difficult to document refusals because drivers call in, you know you're there because the app says they're there, and then they pull away.  I started telling drivers on my note that I have a guide dog and I'd rather have them not take the trip and not have me verify them than pass me by.  Three in a row was a bit much.  I'm actually at the point in my life where I have an appointment with the doctor, I will actually not work my dog because I have to have a ride-share vehicle get to a doctor.  So the solution is timely and I think investigation by the DOJ is very much-needed. 
	Thank you.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Terrie.  The next person speaking against is Debbie Hazelton.  Go ahead, Debbie. 
	Deb, you're muted or something. 
	>> DEBBIE HAZELTON:  Okay. 
	Sorry.  I muted myself back. 
	Okay.  This is kind of a funny twist.  I have been a guide dog user for many years.  I've had eight dogs.  And I actually do believe that if someone works for a company and they know the rules, they actually have to have that dog in their vehicle, allergic or not.  My reason for being not in favor of this resolution is, to me, it sounds like it doesn't have enough teeth.  If the Department of Justice has already seen these complaints and there's been all this hard work, to me, I don't know what kind of way to get more teeth in it, but to me, it needs to get sent back and there needs to be more done with it. 
	I don't know if it's media.  I don't know what it is.  But it needs to be, in my opinion, a whole lot stronger than it is. 
	And I guess I need to be doing more advocacy to be saying this right now.  But yeah, that's -- that's my take on it.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  And our last person speaking for will be -- at this group is Deanna Noriega. 
	>> DEANNA NORIEGA:  All right. 
	We've already used structured negotiation to get them to put policies in place at all.  And it is ridiculous that as a paying customer and the drivers do understand the context because they are supposed to read them and signed off on them.  So if their allergies are so severe they can't be in the company of dogs at all, what is to stop them from being so sick because you climb in the car because you own a dog and have dander on your clothing?  It's a profession that requires them to be in good health and a good driver and obviously if their allergies are that severe, then they should choose another profession. 
	What I think is critical is that, all right, I was in a small town.  There aren't that many drivers.  If they can decide, oh, she's got a dog, I'm not going to pick her up, and just drive off, I may miss my vital appointment.  And I've had it happen where I was extremely late to a vital meeting.  And it's just not fair to our population to -- in all good faith, to sign up for a program and use the app and do everything we're supposed to do on our end but the driver not to do his part.  And part of his signed contract. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right. 
	Thank you, Deanna.  Denise, how are we doing on time?  >> DENISE IRMINGER:  You have 10 minutes and 53 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I will call for one more time for anybody who wishes to speak against this resolution.  Do we have any?  We have -- do we have any hands?  
	>> TORI:  We have Janeen Lea. 
	Janeen, do you want to speak for?  
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Sure. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If you want those who would be for, Jewel dropped off and she would like to be considered for a for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's see if we have any more against first.  Do we have any more hands?  Chris Bell.  Do you want to speak against this?  
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Do we have any more?  Keep in mind, we've got 10 minutes in additional debate period. 
	>> TORI:  Linda. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you wanting to speak against, Linda?  Linda?  Going once -- Linda, going twice.  I'm moving on. 
	>> LINDA:  No, don't move on. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You got in there, Linda.  Okay.  Three against.  Do we have any more?  
	>> TORI:  What is Linda's last name?  
	>> Durrell [phonetic]. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against, Linda?  
	>> LINDA:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Speaking against.  Any more?  
	>> TORI:  We have Niral. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Niral, are you speaking against this resolution?  
	>> For. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hold your Thunder there.  Keep in mind, folks, we have two more to do tonight.  Just to remind you of that.  Katherine.  Did you want to speak against this?  
	>> KATHERINE:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We might not get to all of you.  I'll line you up anyway.  Any more?  
	>> TORI:  We have Sheila Styron. 
	Did you want to speak against this?  
	>> SHEILA STYRON:  I will speak for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hold your Thunder there for a minute. 
	I've got Jewel, I've got Niral and I've got Sheila who want to speak for.  Four against and three fors at this point.  We can take one more against.  
	>> JEWEL KENTUCKY:  This is Jewel. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I've got you down.  Is there anyone else, Tori?  
	>> TORI:  I'm not seeing any. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have four. 
	>> TORI:  We have Alice. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Alice, are you speaking for or against?  
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  This is Alice, a point of order.  We know we have ten minutes left. 
	So basically -- and two minutes per person and you're still asking for those against and the number is already unequal. 
	So -- you never know how long people are going to speak.  We had ten people last night on something and had ten minutes left.  I'm trying to make sure I don't get in trouble here and not do the wrong thing.  
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  I would like for it to be for and not -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have three for and four against.  Do we have one more person wanting to speak for?  Just keeping it even. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Mr. Chair, I'm going to leave the queue.  My name is -- between Nancy and you.  I like that. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Janeen is leaving the queue, so we have three and three.  Let's stop there. 
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  This is Kathy.  I wish to withdraw mine. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's keep it there and see how it goes.  So we're going to go two each way. 
	I've lost track now.  The last one I had was somebody speaking for.  I'm going to take someone against.  And we have about ten minutes or so left.  Let's see what happens. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Chris Bell. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Okay.  This is a real problem.  I'm a guide dog user.  I've been turned down by ride-share companies.  The problem with the resolution, it doesn't really address a remedy that is realistic.  Because since these people that are using their own vehicles to drive, you know, the most that can happen to them is they get disconnected.  The companies don't want to do that because they want people to be driving. 
	And the Department of Justice has tried to go after architects where they've sued the owner of a building for being inaccessible and interference and obstruction clause and they haven't been successful.  I'm already against this resolution because I think it would be good to not pass it and see if there's a way we can make it better.  I'm not sure what that way is.  But I don't think as it is it's going to really make any difference.  I don't think the pattern of practicing actually works in terms of the individual drivers and they're the problem. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Okay. 
	All right.  The next person speaking for is Jewel.  Jewel, go ahead.  
	>> JEWEL KENTUCKY:  Thank you for letting me speak.  The ride-share companies, the people are independent contractors to circumvent laws, they classify themselves as a sharing service or -- I forget what category.  And therefore [indiscernible], in the same way, they are using these circumventing of the ADA by classifying their drivers as independent contractors when they have hundreds of drivers in the same company.  That is the only way to get around it. 
	Therefore, we need to ask the courts, the justice system to regulate this because they are circumventing the law.  Not taking a guide dog because you have allergies is being the same, going in as a teacher and saying, you can't have peanut butter in this cafeteria because I'm allergic to peanut butter. 
	Thank you.  I'll stop there. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We did have one so I think we'll stop there. 
	Linda Durrell. 
	>> LINDA:  My concern, I am a guide dog user and this has occurred to me both in San Francisco and now in Maine, so I'm familiar with the dilemma.  So my concern is that the resolution should be written in such a way that we go after capturing every single occurrence of this phenomenon and that I believe that the companies, by making the process of reporting the occurrence challenging for us at every turn contributes to letting their drivers off.  And that that is where we should intervene and say that every occurrence should be reported in real time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  And we've got one more speaker, I'll take one more for once we've had two against.  We have one more person who wants to speak for, I think. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  We have two. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We'll take one now to keep it even.  Niral, go ahead. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  Okay.  I myself have allergies as well, and if anything with allergies, you know, if I -- as an Uber driver or a Lyft driver, you can have a blanket in the trunk and if someone has a guide dog say, everyone with a guide dog has this, I have allergies, that means you put the blanket down just -- just for my protection. 
	Secondly, for those who are -- because of the resolution, let's get it passed and we can make it better as time goes on.  If we don't, then we're going nowhere.  So let’s start from the beginning and then we can get better as time goes along.  Thanks. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thanks. 
	So we don't have any additional for.  We have one for but we don't have any against.  Denise, how much time do I have?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  4 minutes and 20 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  What I'm going to propose to do is take -- since I have one more person for, if there's one more person who would like to speak against so we can even it out and then we'll see where we're at after those two.  Is there anyone else who would like to speak against?  And again, do you see any hands, Tori?  
	>> TORI:  Debbie Grubb has her hand raised. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Debbie, do you want to speak against this or is there some other point you'd like to make?  Okay.  Deb, you should be allowed to talk.  Find the unmute button there.  Okay. 
	Deb, I'm going to move on, because we're not hearing you. 
	So anybody else, Tori?  
	>> TORI:  No. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> DEBBIE GRUBB:  Ray, this is Debbie.  I had trouble with my phone for a minute.  I did not mean to raise my hand. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  It was up.  But thank you.  Nobody else seeking to speak against, this is one of the ways we are allowed to close debate, so we're going to do that.  If no one else seeks the floor.  So we will now proceed to a vote on this resolution.  2023-14. 
	Let's lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All of those wishing to vote in favor of resolution 2023-14, please raise your hand and while that vote is taking place, I'll pass it over to Deb Lewis for any announcements she might have. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  People have asked me not to do that now, so we'll do silence now. 
	Apparently for some people it's interfering having us speak when they're trying to find buttons is interfering. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I understand that. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So we'll be quiet. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Like finding an Avatar. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right. 
	Those wishing to vote against resolution 2023-14, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I will take the count, then, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Those that are for, 161.  Those against, 35.  And there's 236 -- 250 individuals participating.  Sorry about that. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  161-35 was the vote.  Is there anyone voting in the minority who would like a record vote?  That was a pretty significant margin.  However, is there anyone in the minority who would like a record vote?  Let's get all hands down, first. 
	I'm sorry.  I'll repeat that again as soon as we get all hands lowered. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there anyone who voted in the minority who would like a record vote on this resolution?  Please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  How many do we have?  
	>> NANCY:  Nine. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It takes 25 and we don't have enough asking for it.  Therefore, resolution 2023-14 is adopted.  Let's move on.  We have two more, folks. 
	Only three more hours to go.  [Laughter].  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Resolution, 2023-15, submitted by GDUI.  
	>> 2023-15 Air Travel Attestation Forms.  Submitted by Guide Dog Users, Inc.  
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) promulgated regulations in 2020 that allow airlines to require passengers traveling with guide or service dogs to fill out and submit forms prior to travel attesting to the good health, training and appropriate behavior of their dogs; and 
Whereas, airlines operating in the U.S. have now taken advantage of the opportunity to require passengers traveling with guide and service dogs to submit these forms; and 
Whereas, two years after the imposition of these requirements, Guide Dog Users, Inc. (GDUI) continues to receive reports from passengers who travel with guide dogs that they are unable to independently complete and submit the required forms because airline websites continue to present accessibility barriers for screen reader users; and 
Whereas, GDUI continues to receive reports from guide dog users that when they contact airlines by telephone, approach gate agents in person to ask questions about the required forms, or request assistance with completing the forms, they have received inaccurate information or inadequate assistance; and 
Whereas, inconsistencies across the airline industry with regard to the content and implementation of the current attestation forms means that passengers with disabilities bear a burden that is unreasonable, and in some cases, insurmountable.  
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the American Council of the Blind in convention assembled that GDUI and ACB strongly urge DOT to rescind the current attestation form requirements; and Be it further resolved that if the DOT refuses to rescind the attestation requirements, GDUI and ACB insist that the only questions an airline should be allowed to ask a person with a disability are whether the service dog is required due to a disability, and whether it is trained to perform a specified task for the passenger in order to mitigate that disability.  End of Resolution 2023-15. 
[Reading in Spanish] 
>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Okay.  And the Resolutions Committee moves it do pass, and I so move. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You've heard the resolution.  Again, anyone with GDUI, now we are open for five minutes, start the clock for questions or clarifications that anybody would like to have.  So do we have any hands?  
	>> TORI:  Melanie will be allowed to talk. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  I'm available. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  She is available.  Excellent. 
	>> TORI:  Lyle Sine.  
	>> LYLE SINE:  I'm unmuted, and I believe the chair needs to be recused from this particular resolution, being that he works for an entity that deals with a situation.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Ah.  Yes. 
	Okay.  So -- now, the -- I see exactly what Lyle is asking.  So I will defer to Deb and/or Denise, because I think we'd have to go to Denise.  What Lyle is saying, because of the fact I do work for a major airline, that he believes I need to recuse myself from conducting debate on this resolution.  I'm going to turn to my panel up here.  I have no problem doing that if it's felt that that would be a good idea.  I mean, I don't work directly in the regulatory side of it.  I'll just say that.  So -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair, this resolution actually relates -- isn't as much directed at the airlines as it is the DOT.  I'm not sure if that makes a difference in this discussion, but this is -- this is calling on the DOT to change its regulatory practice. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It's really for the things -- here's my dilemma, guys.  If I do that -- and I have no problem doing that.  If I do that -- and I don't think I need to, given the fact it does relate to DOT. 
	It's really calling on DOT to do something, not the airline.  
	>> LYLE SINE:  The reason why I bring that up is because the entity you work with is in litigation at the present time regarding accessibility.  And I'm trying to make sure that there's no conflict of interest. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I hear exactly what you're doing and I certainly appreciate -- you know what, just to avoid any -- any issues here, I am going to relinquish the chair, but I'm not sure to who I should relinquish it.  I think it would have to go to Denise because Deb is acting in her role as the vice chair of Resolutions at this point.  So -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That's correct. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Denise, I'm going to turn the chair over to you, and I will step away.  I don't want any issues of impropriety of any sort. 
	Denise, I'm going to turn the chair over to you.  
	>> LYLE SINE:  Thank you, Ray. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  And you can figure out how to keep track of the speakers. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I can keep track of the speakers for you, Denise.  Denise?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Denise, I think you're muted.  Denise Colley, I'm sorry. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, Denise Colley. 
	>> NANCY:  Denise is muted right now. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Sorry about that, guys. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I can keep track of the speakers for you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Do we still have the five minutes?  How much did we discuss for the discussion?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Quite a bit, but I think we'll start over. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  So does anyone have a question or point of -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:   Clarification?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Question for point of clarification?  
	>> I do. 
	>> [Indiscernible]. 
	>> DIANE SCALZI:  Can you all hear me?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes. 
	>> DIANE SCALZI:  My understanding, this all came about because of the proliferation of, you know, emotional support pigs and squirrels and everything that were allowed to fly on planes. 
	I'm wondering if rescinding that would make this a problem again or was it a problem against the form was instituted. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Response to the question?  
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  The problem is not being resolved by the forms.  Obviously, there haven't, I don't believe, been any horror stories in the newspapers recently.  But we had a member on -- who said they were on a flight not but a month ago and were told there were 23 animals on the plane with her. 
	So it's still -- it's -- and my understanding is that a lot of applications are being submitted that people aren't sure are legitimate. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  So that would be a point maybe in favor of eliminating the form.  Okay. 
	Thanks.  Steve is next. 
	>> STEVE HEESEN:  When I graduate when the School for the Blind with my beautiful golden retriever, I got this -- just a point of clarification, I got a beautiful ID, and I'm just wondering why that doesn't prove that you have a bona fide service animal and it always worked before and I'm not sure, but I don't think that these emotional service animals have such identification.  I could be wrong, but I just wanted to get an answer. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Sorry.  I didn't mean to interrupt you. 
	That is the problem because you can buy fake IDs all over the internet.  Certificates, ID cards, all kinds of things that say your animal is a service dog or an emotional support dog and all you have to do is pay them the money and say it is and they have no way of checking to find out whether it is or isn't and they don't ask.  So they're out there.  So fake IDs are out there.  And yeah, just like driver's licenses. 
	>> STEVE HEESEN:  Thank you for the answer. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Denise, how much time do we have?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  1:48. 
	Christy Delmonico is next. 
	>> CHRISTY DELMONICO:  I don't know with the drafting of this resolution if there was a centralized system because as it stands now, every airline you fly, you have to do this every time you fly, which for some individuals who are not tech savvy, have an issue with this. 
	So could, one, could it be centralized, and if not centralized, could there be implemented or somebody calls up and says, do this over the phone with an agent and bring their documentation with them to the airport. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  You know, there are a number of things that could be done.  And -- but what we're trying to do when the Department of Transportation issues their regulations, they made a big point of saying one of their primary goals was to make sure their definition of service dog was the same definition that was used in the ADA.  So they went and they have been trying to align a lot of their other stuff.  But the problem is, then they turned around and put these forms in place and the difficulty that we see is that any other entity, businesses of any sort, transportation companies of any sort, are not allowed to ask you for the kind of information that's on those forms.  I think they're allowed to ask you the two questions that are listed in that resolution, and I don't want to talk and use up your time.  But we just want this to be the same, the requirement to be the same for airlines as it is for every other kind of business. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  The time has expired. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  Thank you.  We will close our five minutes of questions and points of clarification and move on to debate.  And I am going to continue with what we have been doing so far.  Do we have any individuals who would like to speak against this resolution, adoption of this resolution?  Raise your hands, please.  And the host will be calling on them so we know who they are. 
	>> TORI:  We have Lyle Sine. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Lyle, do you wish to speak against the resolution?  
	>> LYLE SINE:  [Indiscernible]. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  You're unmuted, Lyle.  Can you hear us?  Are you wishing to speak against the resolution?  Let's move on to the next hand, please. 
	>> TORI:  I have Richard Villa who has something he'd like to say. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Richard Villa, are you wishing to speak against the resolution?  [Screen reader] 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Can hear the JAWS.  Lyle, do you wish to speak?  
	>> LYLE SINE:  I wish to speak against it.  Sorry about that. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  That's all right.  Richard, are you wishing to speak against the resolution?  I know it's hard to unmute, but we really need to speed this up. 
	Anyone else wishing to speak against the resolution?  Anthony Lewis, do you wish to speak against the resolution?  
	>> ANTHONY LEWIS:  No, actually, I was speaking for the resolution. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Hang out there and we'll get to you. 
	Anyone else wishing to speak for?  
	>> TORI:  Penny wants to speak against the resolution. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Anyone else?  
	>> TORI:  Kathy. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  So we have two people wishing to speak against the resolution, so we'll have Melanie as one of the makers of the resolution and two speaking for the resolution.  So 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You have two that I've already identified. 
	Anthony and Kathy. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  The first person who is wishing to speak for.  It's getting late. 
	Melanie.  Melanie, you want to speak for the resolution, please. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Sure.  I will make this brief because I just said part of what I would have said.  But essentially we have two years into the existence of these forms.  We have a mess.  There are a number of problems.  People can't find the forms.  People can't submit the forms.  Because the websites are not accessible.  If they call the airline for help, the people on the phone don't know anything about the forms and will tell them they're okay to fly when they aren't because they haven't submitted the form and when they get to the airport they're told something different.  So the websites are a mess.  The training has not happened in most of the -- in most of the airlines, and as we said before, as I said before, when the Department of Transportation put the regulations in place, they made it a point to say, we're trying to bring our definitions and our requirements in line with the ADA.  So they -- they did that with regard to many things except the forms.  Because no other business in the United States is allowed to ask people what, you know, about their service animal.  The only things they're allowed to ask if they question your right to bring a dog in or to ask for other accommodations, is this dog necessary to mitigate a disability and what task does it do for you in order to do that. 
	And we believe that the airlines should not be exempt from this requirement because as it is, the burden of their forms is falling primarily on the people who have disabilities who are not the people who are causing all the problems to the airlines. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  All right. 
	Our first speaker against, I think, was Lyle Sine.  Lyle, go ahead, please.  
	>> LYLE SINE:  I am very much against this particular resolution.  First of all, I follow the ADA very well, a stickler, and I notice when you do need assistance, you have to ask for it.  When you make airline reservations, the biggest thing you have to do is ask for it.  Any agent should be able to handle that information. 
	I have done cold calls to airlines to see where they are standing with this information. 
	Call them at night, during the day.  There should be no reason why an airline cannot provide you that information.  And if they don't, you ask for a supervisor.  You don't stay at the lowest point.  You go higher. 
	This was done because all the animals and other situations that get on planes.  If anyone would know how long a plane is in the air any given day, you would be surprised if the plane would even be able to get off the ground when it's in the air 20, 23 hours a day some days. 
	And get there, it's my turn to get on the plane.  There's reasons why they have the forms that they do.  They're trying to make sure that the proper team and the proper situations and there's no second-guessing on who can get on the airplane with their guide dog.  I will vote no because I know that all you have to do is ask for assistance and demand it.  Simple as that. 
	I've done it countless hours of the day and night.  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Who is our next speaker for, please. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Anthony. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Anthony, you may speak. 
	>> RICHARD:  And I was for also. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  You said you were speaking for. 
	>> RICHARD:  Yes, I did. 
	>> Can you hear me?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Hold on. 
	Yes, we can hear you. 
	>> ANTHONY LEWIS:  Yeah.  I think this is necessary because there are so many big dogs going on airplanes.  The one thing that I see, as the person mentioned before, is that the process is too cumbersome and that the airlines all have different storms that people have to fill out.  I think if we could do this one time and one time only, and people could have it registered so we don't have to go through it all the time, that would be helpful for all of us.  That would be an amendment I would recommend.  I don't know if there's room for that or not. 
	I think it's really important that we have this done once.  I think it's really inconvenient for folks to have to go through this every time that they're going to take a trip.  And that's what I see for all of us, and if we're flying on multiple airlines, we have to put down multiple forms.  That does become a major inconvenience for us.  So -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Thank you. 
	Our next person.  Penny Moss. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  I'm speaking against this resolution.  Can you hear me?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes, we can hear you. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  Good.  I'm not a dog user.  I am president of a local chapter, and we had problems with one of our members in the past bring two dogs [screen reader] to chapter meetings claiming that they were emotional support animals and they were not guide dogs and she had -- it was very disruptive and it was very difficult and I personally feel that the airlines need to have the forms.  It's a matter of, you know, verifying that your guide dog is really a guide dog and it does what it says it's going to do and that it's certified and trained.  I think that's very important.  I think instead of getting rid of the forms and throwing out the baby with the bath water that it would be better served to have the resolution encourage there to be a national database where the same form could be used for all airlines.  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Thank you, Penny.  Our last speaker for was Kathy Dawsonn. 
	>> KATHY DAWSONN:  I'm speaking for this.  I've flown a lot and I've always had help.  I can understand why, you know, forms have to be filled out, but forms should have to be filled out for every service animal.  If you're going to make the guide dog users do it, then everybody else should have to.  And why can't they make a database that, you know, that the airlines could resort to, to have -- so you wouldn't have to fill out the form more than once.  You know, they'd have it on file. 
	So that's my point. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Denise, how much time do we have left?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  11 minutes and 50 seconds. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  We can go more.  Do we have anyone else who wishes to speak against the resolution?  
	>> RICHARD:  I would. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  And you are?  
	>> RICHARD:  Richard Villa. 
	I've been waiting here. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay, Richard.  Anyone else wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> TORI:  We have Rosemary. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Rosemary, are you wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> ROSEMARY MILLER:  No.  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  Anyone else wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> TORI:  We have a 410 phone number. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  What's the last four?  
	>> TORI:  [Indiscernible] 97. 
	>> VANESSA LOWRY:  This is Vanessa Lowry.  I want to speak in favor of it, so I can remute. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Anyone else?  Anyone else wishes to speak against the resolution?  Any more hands?  
	>> TORI:  We have Paul. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Are you wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  I really didn't want to, but I think I must.  Yes. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I know.  Is that Edwards?  
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  Paul Edwards, yes. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  So we have Richard and Paul.  Do we have a third one?  
	>> TORI:  We have Janeen Lea. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  I'm going to stop it.  Just a second.  I'm going to -- I'm going to try to alternate here. 
	Richard, you want to speak against.  Go ahead. 
	>> RICHARD:  Yes.  My reason for coming up and being against the resolution, not because I'm, you know, against the principle of them getting rid of the forms, but I'm a dog user and I travel a fair amount.  I used to travel a lot more when I was with American, and I'm surprised that the Department of Transportation would actually come up with a form like this and the requirements, it's in 14CFR part 382, nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap, it says, you're not required to identify yourself as a handicap person until you get to the airlines -- I mean, to check-in.  You're not required to tell them ahead of time, even while making a reservation.  So now we're saying we don't want to have to do this because you're requiring this, so tell Bob to get that straight.  Melanie might have read this -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay. 
	Vanessa, you wish to speak for the resolution?  
	>> VANESSA LOWRY:  Can you hear me?  I'm in favor of this.  In October or November I will be flying for the first time in a while to visit another guide dog user out in Minnesota.  Normally I would take the train, because of the train schedule, I would get there very late at night so it would be better if I flew.  And I've heard so many nightmare stories from people who tried to fill out the form, couldn't fill it out, got to the airport and the airport had no knowledge of it and gave them grief and refused to allow them on the plane.  The only concern -- and I'm still for it -- is that the -- this was done to eliminate fake service animals.  And I get that.  By the way, both guide and service dog animals have to fill out the form.  My concern is there is not a remedy in place in the resolution to help the airlines still prevent fake service animals from coming on the plane.  But other than that, I'm very much in favor of the resolution. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Thank you. 
	Okay.  If my numbers are correct, and I'm not guaranteeing anything, I think we're at a point where we have one more that has spoken for than against. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We should be even, I think.  We have Paul for the -- for the against, and Rosemary for the -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I thought she wasn't going to speak. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Then I may have missed that. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Paul, you can go ahead and speak against. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  Let me begin by saying I absolutely think this resolution is crucial.  I think it's important.  I think it's probably the only direction we can go in terms of trying to do something significant.  And after thinking a lot, I've decided that I need to speak against it not so much because of what it's seeking to do, but by the way it's seeking to do it.  In the final resolve clause, there are two segments. 
	One of those segments basically says, get rid of the forms. 
	That's fine if you leave it that way.  The other half of that same clause essentially says, but if you don't want to get rid of the forms, then please, please, you can only ask these two questions.  I think that second element weakens the resolution.  I think it lessens the likelihood of it doing much good, and I think at the very least those two components should have been in separate clauses. 
	My concern, then, while the resolution is absolutely necessary, and frankly, I hope it passes, I hope if we have to do a resolution again, we will be clearer on what our absolute goal is and go for that goal rather than going for one goal and then saying, if we don't get that, we'll take whatever we can get.  It's just not good enough. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay. 
	[Indiscernible]. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  5:49. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay. 
	Rosemary, did you want to speak for the resolution?  
	>> ROSEMARY MILLER:  Yes.  Can you hear me?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes, I can hear you.  
	>> ROSEMARY MILLER:  I would like to speak for this, even though I don't have a guide dog or an emotional dog.  I think it's important for people to fill out the forms for one thing, but then put the forms -- just like they have a no-fly list, they can put that information into a similar, you know, guide dog list or something like that on the -- on the application for folks who want to fill out the form and hopefully they do make it accessible for everybody to fill them out the way they need to fill them out and just use the only two questions, is this guide dog needed and what is it needed for or do they assist you.  So I think -- I'm for this, even though I don't have a guide dog. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Madam Chair, this is Gabe, if I can speak for a quick clarification to something that was said.  Those two things are in separate resolutions.  The same thing that if -- DOT refuses to rescind the attestation forms that these are the only two questions, that is the only "be it further resolved" clause. 
	That's all.  I just wanted to clarify that they are separate clauses. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Thank you. 
	Anyone else wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Denise, a couple of people have asked to clarify, because some of the time we've taken, hands of both kinds and some of the times we've not, so if you would be clear for people if you'll be willing to take both at once or whether you're really looking for one. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Right now, if anyone is willing to speak against the resolution.  We are pretty even in the number of people who have spoken for and against. 
	>> BRIAN CHARLSON:  Madam Chair, this is Brian Charlson, I move to make a motion to amend.  I move that we strike the second resolve clause. 
	[Indiscernible]. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Do people need to have that clause read?  Do they know which clause we're talking about?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Brian, you're talking about that last clause?  
	>> BRIAN CHARLSON:  Correct. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Okay. 
	[Indiscernible] could probably read it if folks need it. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Do we have a second to Brian's motion?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I was going to say, unless Melanie or somebody from GDUI wants to say differently, I would say that's probably not a friendly amendment. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Well -- 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  But I am willing to change if Melanie or Sarah or someone from GDUI wants to say differently. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Were you considering -- were you offering it initially as a friendly amendment, Brian?  
	>> BRIAN CHARLSON:  That was my intent.  That was my intent. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  That was your intent.  All right.  Is that accepted by the writers?  The creators of the resolution?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Is anyone here from GDUI to say if they wish differently than I do?  There is it, is that Sarah that I heard?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I think Sarah needs to be allowed to talk. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I think I heard Sarah raise her hand. 
	>> TORI:  She should be able to unmute now. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Sarah, you can unmute. 
	>> SARAH CALHOUN:  This is Sarah, so to be clear, it would be to remove the suggested, you know, just to rescind, rescind the two forms and that would be it and then just remove what we would -- I guess you might say suggest as far as just asking the two questions.  Is that -- 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Yeah, his motion was to remove that last clause.  If they refuse, these are the only two questions they can ask.  
	>> SARAH CALHOUN:  Because I know we did have a big discussion about that.  Some were for.  Some were against. 
	But yeah, because we weren't sure, because we wanted to give them, the DOT, the opportunity to say, well, okay, they -- if this, do this, but -- they are suggesting this path, so -- I hear what you're saying. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Is that a friendly amendment or not?  
	>> SARAH CALHOUN:  Yes, at this point, I'll say yes, go ahead and accept that. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  The clause will be taken away, it's a friendly amendment. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Thank you, Sarah, for the clarification. 
	>> SARAH CALHOUN:  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Any final speakers wishing to speak against the resolution?  Kathy, you're wishing to speak against the resolution?  Do you wish to speak?  
	>> KATHY LYONS:  I couldn't hear because my JAWS was speaking. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  I asked if you wanted to speak against the resolution. 
	>> KATHY LYONS:  I wish to speak for, so I'll lower my hand. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Anyone wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> DEB TREVINO:  Deb Trevino. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Did you wish to speak against?  
	>> DEB TREVINO:  No. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  One final time.  Anyone wishing to speak against the resolution?  
	>> TORI:  We have Janeen Lea. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Janeen, are you wishing to speak against the violation?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  50 seconds of your 20 minutes. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  No.  Do we need someone so we can stop going -- and I wanted to second the [indiscernible].  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  We have no one else wishing to speak against the resolution.  I think -- saying we can close debate at this time.  We have already heard from the same number of speakers speaking for the resolution.  So I am going to declare the debate period has ended.  And we will move on to the vote.  So can we make sure all hands are lowered. 
	>> NANCY:  Denise, all hands are lowered. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  All those in favor of adopting resolution 2023-15, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  Let's lower the hands. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  All right. 
	Now, all those wishing to vote against passage of this resolution, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  Nancy, we'll have the results. 
	>> NANCY:  Those in favor, 147. 
	Those against, 29.  And the number in Zoom at the time of the vote was 236. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  So let's put all the hands down, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Okay.  Hands are down. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Of the 29 individuals who voted against passage of the resolution, are there 25 who wish to have this resolution go to a voice vote?  Please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Okay.  What is the number?  
	>> NANCY:  10. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  All right. 
	So we do not have 25 individuals requesting that we go to roll call vote.  So I will declare that the resolution 2023-15 has been adopted.  Thank you.  I will turn it back to our illustrious first V.P. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Denise.  Awesome job there. 
	Now, we are going to go on to the next resolution.  So Mr. Resolutions chair. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I think since it's an easy time so far tonight, let's try this one.  We made it to the last one, folks. 
	This is our last one for tonight, I think.  Resolution 2023-16.  
	>> Resolution 2023-16 - ACVREP and OT Certification Submitted by Michael Byington and others.  
Whereas, the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP) was established in order to enhance the stature and recognition of the highly specialized professional disciplines in the field of blindness and visual impairment; and 
Whereas, ACVREP's role is to ensure that available certification options, and the particular requirements for specific practices, reflect and preserve consensus concerning the need for and value of specialized services provided by properly prepared professionals; and 
Whereas, it is essential for ACVREP to embrace a continuum of specialized services without certifying practitioners who are not primarily involved in serving people with vision loss; and 
Whereas, without consultation from the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and other stakeholders, ACVREP recently announced determination to establish a new certification open only to occupational therapists (OTs) who acquire vision-related training to provide specialized services; and, 
Whereas, if this certification effort is to continue, ACVREP should demonstrate a compelling justification for this additional certification. 
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the American Council of the Blind in convention assembled that this organization call upon the staff and board of ACVREP to formally act to suspend any further development of a new OT certification until further input is sought from stakeholders in order to determine whether such a certification is indeed in the best interests of the overall field of specialized services for the blind and visually impaired.  End of resolution 2023-16.  
[Reading in Spanish] 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Okay.  And the Resolutions Committee recommends it do pass and I so move. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You heard the resolution.  We are at the stage -- is Michael Byington or someone representing the folks who put this resolution together, if you'd raise your hand so we know who you are, we can make sure that you get a chance to be recognized to answer any questions that may come up.  Okay.  So we're now going to start our questions and clarifications and I am advised there may be an amendment coming.  So go ahead, Mr. John. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I rise to make the subsidiary to meet with the stakeholders and perhaps meet a better result here, that we wait until after the debate, but this is so confusing and the hour is so late and the subject matter so arcane and specialized and so confusing to many, particularly on what was written on the leadership list and that we're going to get it wrong and damage things in the blindness community, this is all at risk here.  While I cherish the members' prerogatives deeply, I think this is where we should trust the board and defer the board's wisdom in gathering the stakeholders together and bringing this into a more manageable form. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  What we have on the floor, if it's seconded, John McCann has made a motion to refer this resolution to the board of directors to take action.  Is there someone who would be minded to make a second?  We can't have any discussion on this until we get a second.  We have a lot of hands going up here, guys.  So let's start from the top.  Is there -- 
	>> TORI:  Lori Scharff. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Do you wish to second the referral?  
	>> LORI SCHARFF:  No, I do not. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Keep going down the list, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  Gregg Hollins. 
	>> GREGG HOLLINS:  Yes, I would like to second that motion. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  So let's make sure we set the clock where we are at here.  All right.  A motion has been moved and seconded to refer this resolution to the board of directors and to -- would be hold on here.  Let's -- hit your mute button for a second.  I'm hearing people talking and it's confusing me.  All right.  This is hard to do.  Okay.  So a motion has been moved and seconded to refer this to the board of directors asking that the board gather the stakeholders and work with -- I believe work with ACVREP, the Academy For Certification of vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals to work through this situation is kind of what the gist of what John's motion was, I believe.  So we are now taking questions and clarifications on the motion to refer.  We will get to debate in due course.  So now we are starting the five-minute clock on questions and clarifications regarding the motion to refer. 
	John, stay there in case anybody has any questions about your motion. 
	>> TORI:  We have Ted. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Ted.  Is that what I heard?  
	>> TORI:  Yes. 
	>> TED CHITTENDEN:  I do not have a question.  Please lower my hand. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We'll be glad to do that.  I've got to turn this thing off because it's driving me nuts.  Every time hands go up and down those of us inside baseball, we're hearing it in our JAWS and it drives us nuts. 
	Next name, Tori.  Okay. 
	>> TORI:  We have Diane Scalzi. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Do you have a question about the motion to refer?  That's what we're talking about. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Doug Powell has a question.  That probably isn't about the motion to refer. 
	You'll have to queue that if you think it is.  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We got you. 
	>> DIANE SCALZI:  I'm trying to do this for like the second time.  John, I guess I'm wondering what would you think the board might do with this if it's referred to them?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Can we allow John McCann -- there you are. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I appreciate that.  You know, maybe I'm slow. 
	I had a Harvard Law School education.  I read the resolution.  I read leadership. 
	I have the sense that the numbers are profoundly confused about this.  I know that I'm confused about it.  But I think there are people who have more subject matter knowledge and I think it's imperative that we get this right and that we not -- I think we have a better opportunity of generating a better outcome here if the board handles this in consultation with the stakeholders.  That's the sense I get from the debate I heard on the leadership list. 
	Does that help?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah.  So basically he's saying we'll refer this to the board, let them work with the appropriate stakeholders to craft an appropriate, you know, working, you know, with the -- working with ACVREP on this issue, I think, is what I heard.  Okay. 
	Next. 
	>> TORI:  Terry Suarez. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Traveling Terry.  Go ahead.  Again, this is on the questions and clarifications on the motion to refer.  There you are. 
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  Yes, hi, experiencing that little delay, even all the way in Florida.  I want to say that everyone is staying up late and this is very important.  My question is, when I called today and I spoke to, I believe her name was Sylvia that's responsible, she couldn't even give me numbers.  Because I understand the importance of protecting a profession, specifically, you know, a very focused professional.  But I'm trying to figure out the numbers and I believe there's only 3,359. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  This is on the motion to refer. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm going to -- 
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  I believe we need to do more investigation and clarification to make a better decision is my question. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We will -- let's see what the motion does.  I'm sure the board certainly -- if the board gets this, we'll certainly want to do this. 
	All right.  Next one, and Denise, who -- how are we doing on our time?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  40 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jo Taliaferro. 
	Okay, Jo, I'm going to move on because we are not hearing you. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  19 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There you go. 
	19 seconds.  We're going to let this count down.  I don't think we can get a question answered in 19 seconds.  We are going to close out this part of the motion and move on the debate on the motion to refer to the board of directors.  I'm going to ask if there is anyone who wishes to speak against the motion to refer and we'll take up to five for the initial round of speakers.  So anyone who wishes to speak against the motion to refer, please raise your hand and Tori will start from the top. 
	>> TORI:  We have Jeff Thom. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  Yes, I'm against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We have you.  That's Jeff Thom.  And John is also going to stand as the maker of the motion to refer, he can make any comment as the first speaker. 
	All right.  Next one. 
	Next hand, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  We have Alex -- Alice Ritchhart.  
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You are number two on the against.  Next. 
	>> TORI:  Jean Mann. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jean Mann. 
	>> JEAN MANN:  I am also speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That's three.  Two more.  If we have them.  
	>> TORI:  We have Niral. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  I want to speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	Speaking against the motion to refer.  Is there anybody -- and we take one more. 
	>> TORI:  We have a 626 phone number. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is that ending in 388?  
	>> TORI:  Yes, it is. 
	>> RICH:  Rich Pomerantz would like to speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have our five against so now we're going to lower those hands and ask if there's anybody who would like to speak for the motion to refer.  Okay.  Start from the top of the list there and -- 
	>> TORI:  We have Mary Ward. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Mary Ward. 
	Would you like to speak for the motion to refer?  
	>> MARY WARD:  Speaking for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're one. 
	Next one?  
	>> TORI:  Terry Suarez. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Terry Suarez. 
	Are you speaking for the motion to refer?  
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You are. 
	Okay.  That's two.  Next one.  
	>> JEAN MANN:  What are you guys -- issues with -- huh?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jean, you are unmuted.  Do we have another speaker for, Tori?  
	>> Are you doing okay, Tori, or do you need some help?  
	>> TORI:  We have Jewel. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jewel, are you speaking for?  
	>> JEWEL KENTUCKY:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Two more, if we have them.  We have five against, so we'd like two more. 
	We have a bunch of hands up. 
	>> TORI:  Jeanette Kutash.  I would definitely like to speak for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's four. 
	One more. 
	>> TORI:  We have Sandy. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sandy, would you like to speak for the motion to refer?  Get you unmuted and -- Sandy, are you speaking for the motion to refer?  
	>> SANDY RUCONICH:  No, actually, I would speak against it.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Hang in there.  We need one more for the motion to refer. 
	>> TORI:  We have Koni Sims. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni?  
	>> KONI SIMS:  I will speak in favor. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have five in favor of the motion, so now, I'll lower all hands and we have someone unmuted.  If we could mute, please, that would be really appreciated.  Thank you. 
	Okay.  So we're now going to proceed to debate, and this starts the 20-minute initial debate period, up to 20 minutes. 
	So I'm going to recognize John McCann to speak in favor of this for his motion to refer. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'll be brief in deference to the hour.  I think we had an inkling at the outset of this meeting that a lot of people are profoundly confused what's on first, who's on second, and some debate of discourse, if you will, between Mr. Byington and our president, she did put something out publicly, which only confused matters.  I think I'm a pretty intelligent guy.  When I read this, I glazed over.  In deference to the hour, to the arcane matter, possible damage to collateral relationships, for all of those reasons, I would really urge -- and we should, in situations like this, be able to trust that the board will do the right thing, okay?  I know we're a membership-driven organization.  I'm deeply in the ethos of that and I guard the providence of the membership with fangs and everything else you can possibly think of.  But I think this is a place where a referral to the body with the subject-matter expertise and I'll stand by that. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Let's take our first speaker against, which would be Jeff Thom.  Okay. 
	Go ahead, Jeff. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  Thank you.  Okay. 
	So this -- I agree with John in one respect.  This is a complicated issue.  But sometimes issues have to be dealt with by the membership, and I think this is one that needs to be.  I say this as one who has had problems with both sides of the question on this resolution.  In fact, when the resolution originally came to this committee, I was not prepared to vote for it, and I didn't.  But we've changed that resolution in a form that I can accept.  And more importantly, speaking to this motion, the people on the other side are led by the leadership of the board and so I don't think it's fair for this resolution to be referred to the board when its leadership is clearly not on the side of the drafters of this resolution.  Certainly, you, the membership, should vote this up or down.  I don't think it's incendiary enough to cost relationships, but maybe you do. 
	Vote up or don't and don't let one side dictate what we're going to do.  Thank you very much. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Jeff.  Next person speaking for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Mary Ward. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Mary Ward.  Go ahead, Mary. 
	>> MARY WARD:  Am I still muted?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  No, you're unmuted.  Go ahead. 
	>> MARY WARD:  Thank you for that.  I wanted to speak as a member of -- how does the -- someone who is not privy to the stuff in the leadership, and this might be a resolution that I agree with.  The problem is I see it as a person who is not privy to all of this stuff.  I did work in rehabilitation.  I don't like the idea that much of special -- spending that kind of stuff, but I kind of feel like as a person who doesn't have a lot of background in exactly what led up to this, I feel like it's really kind of not time to marshal the troops yet.  I do believe in democracy.  I believe very strongly in democracy and we should all have a say.  I'm not sure with the state of this and with my lack of knowledge of it, I can only assume that a lot of the other people in this room don't have any more knowledge than I do and I think it's just not time yet.  I yield the rest of my time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Next person speaking against. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Alice Ritchhart.  
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  All I can say, it's already been demonstrated this week where the board stands on this position so it will not get a fair shake and membership should have a say, especially those of us in the field that have the ability to explain it to the membership but it seems that we're being shut up and silenced that they don't want it out there and I'm not sure why because we're talking about the lives of blind people. 
	So I would hopefully vote with all hope that you will vote down this amendment to refer.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thanks, Alice. 
	Next person speaking for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Terry Suarez. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Terry Suarez. 
	Terry, go ahead. 
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  Hello!  How is everyone doing tonight?  Can you hear me okay?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We got you loud and clear, Terry. 
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  Thank you very much, and I appreciate everyone's time.  I believe that we need to have our elected officials really reevaluate this as part of the Get Up and Get Moving, we did pass something in September of 2021 where we were embracing the healthcare profession to help us achieve Get Up and Getting Moving life-style and to remind everyone, I am a registered respiratory therapist for 30 years and five years blind.  My profession still embraces me, and I just feel that we need to be very cautious as we've already done a lot of work trying to embrace the healthcare professionals that are out there.  Right now, there's only 3,359 L & M instructors in the United States -- no, I apologize, it's around the world.  And I think we need to reevaluate taking it to the board where we have elected officials and a lot more time to reevaluate because it looks like we're going on from one direction to another and with this large organization we put each other first. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  And I yield my time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Terry.  Next person against. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Jean Mann. 
	>> JEAN MANN:  Most of what I would say would already be said by Jeff and Alice.  I'm sorry the hour is late, but that's no one's fault but ours and I'm not sure that anyone knows enough about this topic and I understand there has been some -- I don't want to say prejudicial talk, but there were some issues and I really feel that the name -- the rehabilitation task force needs to be involved in this and there are people who are involved in this type of work.  I definitely do not want to refer this back to the board.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Next person speaking for, please. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Jewel. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jewel.  Jewel, you should be allowed to -- you should be allowed to unmute. 
	Jewel, your hand keeps going up and down.  You've got to hit the unmute.  Jewel, you keep raising your hand and lowering it. 
	That's not going to get you unmuted, my friend.  
	>> JEWEL KENTUCKY:  There.  I did not have it available.  I came back in. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead.  
	>> JEWEL KENTUCKY:  Yes, I am going to speak to referment.  I believe that the board, if they do not understand the issue, will speak out to people who do understand it.  They have gotten where they are because they are very resourceful.  As a person who is actively studying to become an occupation therapist, becoming certified in VRT after 15 years, I believe this is a consideration that we should refer to the board of directors because they have more resources and knowledge than many of us do.  Even me studying does not fully understand all of the nuances of it.  I would speak for referring it to the board who has the knowledge and understanding.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There we go. 
	Hit the button and it didn't do anything there.  All right. 
	Thank you, Jewel.  All right. 
	Next person against.  Niral.  Go ahead, Niral. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  Can you hear me?  First of all, I've studied this resolution before.  It is crafted poorly.  Secondly, because it -- the biggest thing I'm worried about, if you were in the inner city areas where we working with multihandicapped individuals, somebody served by -- if someone has blindness or cerebral palsy, that's what's needed.  And I can understand in some areas don't have the -- but we can't dictate that and -- you know, people don't have money seems to -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Niral, I'm going to rule you a little out of order because you're not speaking directly germane to the motion to refer so I'm going to rule you a little out of order there and sorry about that.  You were more to the main resolution than the referral.  So I'm going to rule you out of order.  The next person for. 
	>> TORI:  Jeanette. 
	>> JEANETTE:  Thank you for allowing me to speak.  I believe there is value in the original resolution.  My concern, though, and the reason I think referring is so important is we need to get this right.  If there are people saying that OTs need an extra certification to work with us, we need to make sure that's really true.  I, in rehab situations, have worked with physical therapists and occupational therapists and they didn't have extra certification and they got it done.  I would rather see us draft the resolution correctly because my fear is if we don't get this one right, we could have other repercussions and address this extra certification stuff with other disciplines like physical therapy, and I think if we don't get it right, we're going to lose on all counts.  So I support referral. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Next person to speak against. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Mitch. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead, sir. 
	Mitch, you can star 6. 
	>> MITCH:  Ladies and gentlemen, and with all due respect, John McCann, to your Harvard education, my USC education makes this clear as day.  This resolution should not go to the board of directors.  I served on the board for 20 years.  The board of directors has no more expertise on this subject than the membership.  People like Lori Scharff and others who drafted it are in this field. 
	This issue -- and I will speak to it when it comes to a pro and con debate -- shortly, I hope -- I will speak to why this isn't confusing except by the members of the board who have made it such.  Keep in mind, we are an organization.  You are no more or less knowledgeable than anyone serving on the board.  I urge you in the strongest possible language to not refer this to the board, to discuss it, debate it, and vote on it. 
	Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Mitch.  And next person to speak for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Koni Sims. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni, go ahead. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  I am voting to refer to this the board because this resolution is in conflict with the resolution that ACB, us members, passed back in 2021.  And I think that the board needs to look at this and look at the other resolution, because if this passes, then it conflicts strongly.  And we need to figure out which one we want to go by. 
	Yes, we are a membership organization.  Membership has a say.  But we have spoken as a membership on a resolution supporting training and medical professionals and now this one is saying that we do not want them to be trained.  So it is in conflict and I think that the board needs to review and look at both the resolutions because if this passes, then all the work that we have done for over two years and that we passed, as members, is not going to be anything that we stood for.  So we can't have it both ways.  So I really urge you that you pass it and let the board figure out what resolution we should look at and consider because we can't have professionals trained or say, oh, I don't like this because we don't want them trained.  So I really, truly think that we need to remember that of other resolutions that we have passed in the past that we have to consider those.  So I yield.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Koni.  I think that's the last speaker for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  That's the last one 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  How much time do we have, Denise, parliamentarian.  Two minutes, each speaker, let's pause the clock.  Since about two minutes, each speaker, I'm going to propose that we take one more against, if there is one, and we'll give you -- again, you're debating the motion to refer. 
	So I'll take one more against and one more for.  And that will get us to 20 minutes and then we will need to vote if we want to extend debate. 
	>> TORI:  We have Regina.  
	>> REGINA MARIE:  Against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're against the motion to refer.  Let's lower all hands.  Hands are going down and I can hear it. 
	Okay.  All right.  Now, let's see.  Is there one person who would like to speak for referral?  Okay.  Chris Bell, I think is the first hand. 
	>> TORI:  Go ahead, Chris. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Yes, I'm speaking for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So we're going to take these two speakers, we should be close to time, and if we need to extend time, we will need to take a vote to have a motion come forward to do that. 
	But let's hear from these two individuals.  Regina Marie. 
	>> REGINA MARIE:  First, I want to clear up a misconception with all due respect.  The resolution that we voted on to have training for medical professionals, we're not speaking to this issue.  They were speaking -- this is talking about a certification that existed and then was taken away and they want to replace it with a different certification.  It is about not consulting people who are blind or low vision when they do this, when they had their stakeholder meetings. 
	Also, not consulting certain categories of professionals that were directly in the field.  And so I hope this demonstrates that saying this is very complicated. 
	It's not quite -- well, I don't believe it's true.  I have no background in rehabilitation as far as delivering that.  My background is in social services.  I was a crisis counselor and that kind of thing.  And I had an education from Cal State Fullerton, not anything prestigious like Harvard.  I read it and I understand it and I can explain it even further but I don't have the time.  I just want to urge people, when people start telling you that you don't know what might be good for you because it's too complicated, that should be a red flag.  We can learn.  And I think this organization does a great job at educating blind people. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Time. 
	Thank you.  Okay.  Chris Bell, speaking for. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Thank you, Ray. 
	What this resolution does not take into account is the need of thousands of people that are losing their vision, that are not yet receiving rehab services because we don't have enough providers.  And that's something I think the board needs to directly address and which is not addressed in this resolution. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  There's also a request for information.  I'm not sure. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That would have been the first five minutes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  What they're asking about is the resolution that Koni referred to, they would like to hear it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The resolutions are published.  I will just say that we could probably take too much effort to -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Could they tell them what resolution this -- do we know -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni, do you happen to know what resolution that was in let's get Koni unmuted. 
	>> CLARK RACHFAL:  I believe that's 2021-01. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I would encourage you to go look at that resolution. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Right.  Clark is right.  It's called 2021-01, mandatory disability awareness training for healthcare providers.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, okay. 
	Now, we have reached the end of the first debate period. 
	However, if someone is minded to make a motion to extend debate, we can do that.  Is there someone who is minded to bring a motion to extend debate for up to an additional 20 minutes?  You're moving to extend debate on the motion to refer. 
	>> TORI:  Casey. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  I want to know if John McCann would accept a friendly amendment.  As you know, when this came up on the president's call, one of the issues was what is -- what are extenuating circumstances.  And we agreed on that call we would support such a resolution if that determine were defined as guidelines -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Casey, I'm going to rule you out of order. 
	This is on the motion to refer. 
	Okay?  We're just talking about the motion to refer at this time. 
	So I'm going to rule you out of order.  That's more germane to the resolution, and if the motion to refer is defeated, we can certainly talking about that. 
	>> CASEY DUTMER:  Okay. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there anyone who is minded to extend debate for up to 20 more minutes?  
	>> DON HORN:  I am going to somewhat reluctantly move that we extend debate because I think there have been a lot of statements that have been made that could be clarified -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there somebody who would like to second Don's motion?  
	>> TORI:  We have Regina Marie.  
	>> REGINA MARIE:  Second. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's set the stage.  I know it's late.  We have a motion on the floor that's been duly moved and seconded to extend debate and that is not debatable so we will move to a vote.  What we're going to vote on now if you're voting to extend the debate on resolution 2023-16 to the board, extending debate for up to another 20 minutes.  All hands lowered.  Let's lower all hands. 
	Okay. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you so much.  All in favor of extending debate for an additional 20 minutes, please raise your hands. 
	>> We're voting right now. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We're voting on a motion to extend debate. 
	>> NANCY:  We have settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Let's lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All those wishing to vote against the motion to extend debate on the referral motion, please raise your hands. 
	>> NANCY:  We have settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'll take the results. 
	>> NANCY:  In favor of extending debate up to is 19.  Against, 141. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The motion to refer fails, and what you're voting on is the motion to refer resolution 2023-16 to the board of directors.  For action.  All right.  All those -- do we have all hands lowered?  
	>> NANCY:  No. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's get them down.  Lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Just one moment.  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All those wishing to vote in favor of referring resolution 2023-16, 2023-16, all those in favor of referring resolution 2023-16 to the board of directors, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  Okay.  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All those wishing to vote against the motion to refer resolution 2023-16 to the board of directors, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I will take the results, please. 
	>> NANCY:  The vote in favor is 64.  Against, 113.  And there are 214 participants in Zoom. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So the motion to refer fails.  Does anyone on the opposing or the losing side, which in this case was the 64 votes, does anyone wish to have a record vote on the referral motion?  
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  How many do we have?  
	>> NANCY:  10. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So the motion to refer fails.  We do have a point of order that has been raised.  Go ahead with that, Deb. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We are we doing a record vote, checking for a record vote on a motion?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Because that's the way that ACB does business. 
	Any issue that comes before the floor, we do need to ask if there's more than 25, 25 or more people, we do need to ask for a record vote per the standing rules.  And for the constitution and bylaws, actually, too.  That is why we did that. 
	Okay.  All right.  So here's where we're at, guys. 
	We're now back to debating to handling the main resolution, the resolution 2023-16.  So I will take any questions or clarifications and we have -- I know we have people from the group that made the resolution, so let's see what we -- let's see what we've got, Tori.  Tori, do we have any hands?  
	>> TORI:  We do, Doug Powell.  
	>> DOUG POWELL:  Can someone please explain what the third "whereas" clause means?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Can we read that third "whereas" clause and have that explained, please, within our five minutes for that?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  Do you have that?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Whereas, it is essential for ACVREP to embrace a continuum of specialized services without certifying practitioners who are not primarily involved in -- and I'm looking on my phone here -- in serving people with vision disabilities -- or vision loss, excuse me.  This is the question about embracing a continuum of services for people who are primarily serving individuals with vision loss. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Doug is asking what exactly that means. 
	Is there someone who -- 
	>> MICHAEL BYINGTON:  Thank you very much.  To put that in the simplest of terms, ACVREP has a reputation of being the blindness and visual impairment services expert in certification for who should be doing what and that clause is simply stating that that is something that should be maintained.  Their expertise in blindness and visual impairment and that they should not certify in areas that don't specifically and pretty exclusively deal with blindness and visual impairment.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Next person, Tori. 
	>> TORI:  Lori. 
	>> LORI SCHARFF:  I was asking to be unmuted to speak on anything as one of the co-authors.  I would like to clarify a few things that have been said earlier, if I may. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> LORI SCHARFF:  First of all, there seems to be a misperception that we -- there are some people -- and it's been alluded, myself included -- are against the certification of occupational therapists.  We are not.  We support the certification of occupational therapists with the proviso that they have to meet the same 17 core standards as a vision rehabilitation therapist. 
	Currently, ACVREP will only be credentialing them in 10 to 12 areas, and the people who will lose out will be the people with the most significant disabilities -- those who are DeafBlind, those who might need to learn Braille, and those who may need to use a long white cane indoors because the occupational therapist will not be needed to be certified in those areas as stated by ACVREP and we are only speaking about the 3,000 -- the number that was quoted earlier, 3,000 whatever it was, that's everybody that's certified through ACVREP, so I just wanted to clarify that as well. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	That's good.  Any others?  
	>> TORI:  Kathy Lyons. 
	>> KATHY LYONS:  Yes, I've been working between 25 and 30 years trying to get a bill passed in New York state that would give licensure to all [indiscernible] instructors and vision and rehabilitation therapists.  The reason being is that if those services are needed in a nursing home, they give it to an OT that may or may not have the proper training and then the patient doesn't get adequate training. 
	We're not opposed to OTs getting more certification.  But we want the patients in the -- or the residents in these places to be able to get all the training that they need. 
	>> Chair, this sounds like debate. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, I was about to rule her out of order, but she stopped.  Again, this is questions and clarifications that people have about the resolutions. 
	>> 
	>> KATHY LYONS:  I want -- it was clarification. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  But you were talking about what you were doing in New York so it cuts close to the line.  That's okay. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  20 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hello.  Who's that?  [Overlapping speakers] unmute.  [Laughter] 
	>> I'd request because the most important part and the least confusing part of this resolution is the resolve clause, that's what's being acted upon, I would request that be read. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Let's go ahead and read the resolve clause of this resolution, if we could, just so everybody kind of understands what's being asked here.  We'll do that before we go to debate. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  This organization calls upon the staff and board of ACVREP to formally act to suspend any further development of a new OT certification until further input is sought from stakeholders -- I'm sorry. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Keep going. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I'm sorry, stakeholders in order to determine that such a state -- certification is indeed in the best interests of the overall field of specialized services for the blind and visually impaired.  Sorry, I'm having a little trouble reading.  I'm reading on my phone.  I've gotten tired. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It is getting -- okay.  So basically, we're asking for that and ACVREP stands for the Academy For Certification For Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals, if anyone does not know what that acronym means.  Okay.  We're going to move to debate on this resolution, so I'm going to ask if there's anyone that would like to speak against this resolution, please raise your hands.  We've gotten some people.  Tori. 
	>> TORI:  Koni Sims. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni Sims, okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You have to -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm working on it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Koni was starting to talk. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you talking for or against?  
	>> KONI SIMS:  I'm speaking against it and I have an amendment I'd like to present. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You have an amendment that you'd like to present.  That is appropriate during debate.  So we will -- we'll put you as against but with an amendment. 
	Okay.  Anybody else wanting to speak against?  Anisio, go ahead, sir. 
	>> ANISIO CORREIA:  Can you hear me?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Are you speaking against, Anisio?  
	>> ANISIO CORREIA:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's two. 
	Anybody else?  
	>> TORI:  We have a 410 phone number.  Ending in 97. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Tell us who you are and are you speaking against. 
	>> VANESSA LOWRY:  It's Vanessa Lowry from Maryland and I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's three. 
	Next one. 
	>> TORI:  Chris Bell. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Chris Bell. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  I'll speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  One more. 
	>> TORI:  Terry Suarez. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Terry, are you speaking against?  
	>> TERRY SUAREZ:  Yes, sir.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So we have our initial five speaking against for the initial debate period.  Is there anyone who -- put your hands down here. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Also, Ray, there is a motion from Matt to postpone debate. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I think that would take precedent. 
	Okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We have our five speakers against. 
	Let's act on Matt's motion.  I think that would take precedence.  And Denise is not telling me I'm wrong.  So I'm going to -- so Matt so moves -- 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  I have a question.  Somebody wanted to make an amendment?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah, Koni has an amendment she said. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Why are we postponing debate if you've got an amendment?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Matt, if you can get your hand up.  Do you want to postpone to a time certain?  Is that what you're wanting to do, sir?  I'm guessing because of the -- 
	>> MATT SELM:  I think -- I seek to postpone debate until we reconvene tomorrow because of the late hour.  I want to take precedent to recognize that. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  A motion to postpone is -- if my understanding of Robert's Rules, it's very limited. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  It's a higher ranking. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  And the motion to postpone debate is nondebatable.  So is there somebody who wishes to second Matt's motion?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Ray, he's postponing it to tomorrow evening's meeting. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  June 23rd during our gathering tomorrow evening. 
	>> MATT SELM:  That's correct. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there someone who would like to second that motion?  
	>> TORI:  We have Jane Perry. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jane, would you like to second that motion?  Next hands?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Natalie Couch seconds the motion. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's stop with the hands.  This is nondebatable.  We have a motion and a second to postpone debate on this resolution until tomorrow evening, June 23rd, during our gathering, which the gathering which starts at 7:00 p.m.  central.  Okay.  Somebody's JAWS is really going there.  We need to get you -- okay.  So that's nondebatable.  So we're going to proceed to a vote on the motion to postpone debate until tomorrow evening.  So all those in favor of -- get all hands lowered, first. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	All those wishing to postpone debate until tomorrow evening on this resolution, please raise your hands. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Someone needs to be muted. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Somebody needs to be muted.  We are really hearing JAWS. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  See, the night is young out here on the West Coast.  The Byingtons need to be muted. 
	>> NANCY:  Just so you know, it's early on the East Coast too. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I see that. 
	>> NANCY:  They're in the morning.  It's the Central Time people who are late. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We don't like it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  My husband hasn't had dinner.  He'd be interested in this voting. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I haven't had dinner either. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Let's lower all hands, please. 
	>> NANCY:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All those wishing to vote against postponing debate on resolution 2023-16 until tomorrow evening, please raise your hand.  Voting against postponing debate. 
	>> NANCY:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  What are our results?  
	>> NANCY:  Those favor in postponing debate until tomorrow night is 128.  Those against is 31.  And there are 203 participants in Zoom. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All right.  That being said, debate will be postponed until tomorrow evening.  And so -- on this resolution.  So we are going to -- I'm going to turn the floor, then, back over to Deb Cook Lewis. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All righty. 
	Thank you, Ray, and thank you, everyone, and great, great marathon evening.  We've gotten a lot done.  We still have some more to do.  It looks like we're all going to spend our Friday evening together, and that will be great. 
	I believe the appropriate order for this process tomorrow night should be to do the constitution and bylaws amendments first because we have publicized the time for them as being 7:00 p.m.  central, 8:00 p.m.  Eastern, so I believe we will again with the constitution and bylaw amendments.  Then I had said we would take Carla's amendment to the standing rules next, but I believe the better protocol in terms of -- it has no impact on anything we are doing prior to being in Schaumburg.  So I think in the interests of trying to move to the debate and other things that we have, we will take 2023-16 next and begin where we left off this evening with debate on the resolution.  And then when we've completed that process, then we will take up the discussion of Carla's amendment to the standing rules. 
	And Paul would like to speak to an amendment he is sure is friendly but what are you amending?  Because we don't have anything to amend.  So Paul, you need to raise your hand so they can -- they can call on you and we can find out what you're amending. 
	Are we recognizing Paul?  
	>> NANCY:  I see him.  He's way down in the line, you guys. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Can somebody unmute him?  Do I need to?  
	>> NANCY:  He's been allowed to talk. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Go ahead, then, Paul. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  This is just sticking with practice that I think has become pretty well ingrained in ACB in last clause of the resolution, it says the blind and visually impaired and I think it should say people who are -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We'll take that up tomorrow night. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  I think it's probably friendly. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  It is, but you're out of order right now. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  All right. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Carla would like to be recognized. 
	>> TORI:  She should have permission to talk. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Carla?  
	>> NANCY:  Does she have her hand up?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  She said she allowed her to talk. 
	>> NANCY:  I found her, but the -- let me click on the "allow to talk." 
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  I think I'm unmuted now.  Madam Chair, when we get to the convention, do I understand that -- well, can you review what the process will be when it comes up for a vote when we get to the record votes?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Sure.  So when we get to the record vote, Carla's motion asked that we would read the -- whatever it is, subject to the record vote, and provide an up to ten-minute summary of the items.  I assume basically potentially each item, but that was basically -- so that the essence of your motion, I believe, was to have the items read aloud in assembly and a summary provided of the debate. 
	What Carla and I talked about doing was -- I was concerned about the summary because who is going to write that in a way that is completely agreeable to everywhere and also it's really hard to have something like that that doesn't come up for debate. 
	So we agreed that it would be very appropriate for us to have all of the resolutions and amendments that will be voted in the record vote read on July 5th but there will be no debate and no discussion because that has taken place this week.  But they would be read aloud and then we would go to the voting.  So that means it would have to happen on Wednesday, July 5th, because that is when we are going to do the voting. 
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  Okay.  And then so do I understand that that will be permitted?  Under the current standing rules?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, it really has no bearing on the standing rules.  There's nothing in the standing rules we could determine would prohibit it and I've had that conversation in consultation with the parliamentarian and so there's nothing under the standing rules that would prohibit us from doing it. 
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  Madam Chair, I second the motion to -- we will withdraw this motion at this time. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you.  That will save us a few seconds tomorrow night.  There's a ton of questions coming in and because I'm talking to you, I'm not reading questions at the same time, so after the meeting is over, if any of those need to be addressed, I will do that with you, but I'm not looking. 
	The one that I did see while we were getting Carla unmuted, though, was to ask why we wouldn't do the resolution first because it's a continuation of tonight's business, and my response to that is that we need to do what has been published to be done because that is a separate meeting event and we are adding this to it.  So we will continue this resolution tomorrow night. 
	I'm certain we will complete it. 
	And we'll stay up until we get it.  But we need to take care of the -- what we committed in time and so we will take the constitution bylaws and then we will take -- resume the debate on the resolution -- begin it, I guess. 
	That is everything I have for this evening.  I'm just looking to see if there's -- okay.  I think other than the question of why don't we take the resolution at the opening, I don't see, quickly, anything down here else that would be pressing.  So in view of the hour, I thank everybody.  We will see you all tomorrow evening and this meeting is in recess.  
[ Human realtime captioning by HRI CART.  ]