American Council of the Blind 62nd Annual Conference and Convention
6/23/2023 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 
CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS
JUNE 23, 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:  Welcome, everyone.  If you've been with here in Zoom, you've heard the lay of the land already, but we'll go through it again quickly for everyone who is listening to us on ACB Media and anywhere else we might be connected.  So thank you for coming this evening. 
	Our agenda -- first of all, let me go through what we expect to accomplish this evening, and it should be an interesting evening.  We will be starting with the constitution and bylaw amendments.  John McCann is here as the chair of the Constitution and Bylaw Committee, and he'll be presenting two issues this evening.  We won't be able to play the Spanish file this evening.  I'm sure we'll be able to play it when we play it in convention on the 5th, but we can't play the Spanish version tonight.  So it will be live translated in the Spanish channel.  Because they are translating at a slight delay, there will be a few minutes of silence at the end of the English version to allow the Spanish translation to catch up with us.  So I'll pause about ten seconds there, just so you don't think we left.  That's the situation. 
	So we're going to be starting with the constitution and bylaws.  We will take questions, and we will take debate.  There will not be voting.  We will be voting on July 5th, a record vote as required.  That is how we will be handling it.  Sheila will be working to making it quicker if we can.  There's no way this will be as fast as it is when it is in person, but we are doing everything we can to try to work that out.  So when we call for questions, then, Sheila will begin to take your hands and unmute you and she will follow along and keep up with us, and John will take a question, or if it's not that, we will deal with that. 
	During the constitution and bylaws portion, Nancy Becker will be monitoring the Q&A, so if you are using that, I think that has helped us and it was very great last night.  I really appreciate that people did not use it for chatting and much as I love talking to you, it just wasn't very helpful.  So that worked very well last night and thank you so much for that, and we'll use it again tonight. 
	So we will take the questions, and then when we do the pros and cons, we will try to really hold to what we said. 
	I think things got a little slippery there last night with that, so I want to -- I will be collecting the five people who wish to speak in opposition to an amendment, up to that number, and then I will collect the same number of people negative for the positive side, the for side, and we will work accordingly. 
	We will do our 20-minute debate.  When we have near the end of the people we are committed to, I will be speaking with Denise, our parliamentarian, to figure out if we have a significant amount of time left and if we do, I will ask Sheila to begin taking hands while those last people are talking, so when they finish talking, we can go ahead and ask the next people about that.  We will be very clear in that first five, which are -- we'll take the opposition and the for.  The next that we do, I think we would be more likely to only do a couple of people and so if we are only going to do a couple, then we may at that point take all those hands at once.  I'll try to be very clear if we're going to.  Just because it might be more efficient.  I believe in that time when we're looking for several people, it gets really tedious if we've asked 13 folks who all want to be the same one and we're not going to be doing them and then we're hunting.  So I think that will be more efficient.  We'll try that. 
	Once we complete the debate on the constitution and bylaws, that is over, and then we'll be finishing the process we began last night with resolution 2023-16.  We got up as far as establishing who the five speakers will be not in favor of the resolution.  We got that far.  So we will be identifying the five who wish to speak for the resolution.  And then we will continue that.  Ray will be chairing that again, and we will continue that process in hopefully the same manner as we are doing -- excuse me, doing that if it works well for us. 
	Once we complete the debate on that, and then we will vote, if we have any amendments or whatever, obviously, we have to deviate the path for those, but depending on the line of direction that this goes, that's where we'll go. 
	Where we left ourselves off on Wednesday was that we completed that meeting with a motion from Carla Ruschival, seconded by Amanda Selm, to amend the standing rules such that the items that are going to a record vote would be read aloud on the day of the record vote, which is July 5th, Wednesday, and they would be read aloud and asked there would be a summary of the statements of pro and con related to the assembly of the debate, basically.  So that was put forward.  Carla and I -- and then the plan was to have that on the agenda tonight.  So if you were expecting that, that was the plan.  And we were going to do that as well.  But Carla and I spoke yesterday, and last night she withdrew her motion and Amanda, of course, withdrew the second as well, and based on the commitment from me that I see absolutely no problem with having the files read on the 5th, so it will be the resolutions that are going to be up for record vote and it will be the constitution and bylaw amendments.  So she withdrew, because she withdrew the entire motion, the summaries will not be developed.  I expressed some concern about the real feasibility of doing that.  And she accepted that.  So there will be no debate or discussion. 
	They will simply be read, but it will help people be really clear about what they will be voting for.  So I think that's actually a really good idea, and if there's no problem, we don't need to vote it. 
	All right.  Having said all that, I think we're ready to begin.  And so John McCann, I will turn it over to you and when you're ready, you can have Rick play the first amendment that you might like to introduce whatever. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Very good. 
	This is a different animal, but I will ask an obnoxious question.  Can I be heard?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You can. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Thank you, Madam Chair, I come before you as chair as the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to present two bylaw amendments, knock on wood, I am hoping they will be received as not being controversial. 
	I do want to in light of the committee who has so ably and conscientiously assisted me -- Vice Chair Marie Hansen, board liaison Ray Campbell, and Dan Spoone contributed very substantially.  The other seven members of the committee are Frank Cuta, Janelle Edwards, Cynthia Hawkins, Peter Heide, Maria Kristic, Chris Prentice, and Jeff Thom.  Six of the ten people, six or seven, I had that statistic more clearly available to me last night.  Six or seven are attorneys.  I kind of like that. 
	We considered many things this year.  I think we will advise during the open session to withdraw two or three amendments.  That were substantial amendments.  Do not be fooled that we are only bringing two forward does not mean this committee was not substantially, substantially engaged in some very deep governance considerations that have to do with our current hybrid environment and certain compromises where amending of practices that that may force upon us.  But that's a discussion for another day. 
	So I guess without further ado, I would suggest that we move to a reading of 2023-01, having to do with the composition of the board's Budget Committee.  
	>> 2023-01.  Proposed amendment to Bylaw 5A to make the ACB treasurer a mandatory member of the budget committee.  Bylaw 5:  Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors.  Current language:  A.  The Board of Directors shall elect a subcommittee of three (3) which shall review and make recommendations to the board regarding the annual budget submitted by the executive director.  Once a budget has been adopted by the Board of Directors, it cannot be altered except by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board of Directors.  Proposed amendment language:  A.  The Board of Directors shall elect three (3) members to serve with the treasurer on a committee which shall review and make recommendations to the board regarding the annual budget submitted by the executive director.  Once a budget has been adopted, it cannot be altered except by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board.  End of bylaw amendment 2023-01. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Are we waiting now?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah, you should be good. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  You indicated we'll not be receiving a Spanish version?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That's right.  Perfect. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Simply put, this amendment will do two things.  It will expand the committee from three to four, as it happens, but the treasurer, shocked me this wasn't already the case.  The treasure will be a mandated member of the board's Budget Committee.  This amendment makes perfect sense to me and I dearly hope -- I'll just say this.  I hope the membership does not feel inclined to second-guess the judgment of the board in this matter.  It is a matter of board governance, but it makes total sense.  I hope the membership will defer to the board's judgment in this and allow this to pass.  It does come with a do-pass recommendation. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  So we will begin by taking questions.  If there's anyone who has a question regarding this amendment and would like to ask John a question or for clarification, this is when you would raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Deb, are we alternating between?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah, we will go with you, then Sheila and -- go ahead, Sheila. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Paul Edwards. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  I guess you guys can hear me.  This is a little bit different.  Does the constitution and bylaws have any concern that there are four members of the committee with the possibility, then, that there could be a deadlock of two and two in making decisions?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  What I would say, the board did not raise that concern with the Constitution and Bylaws Committee.  When I originally drafted this I thought there would be a treasurer and two others.  I was told they wanted a treasurer and three others.  If they wind up with a tie, they'll find a way to work it up.  I hear you, but a mechanism could be developed to break a tie.  As important as the Budget Committee is, it is advisory.  So even a tie vote -- on whether practice is to have an odd number of individuals on committees?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  It's not mandated.  If the board wants for. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Asking for the parliamentarian.  So Denise?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  The answer is that you establish your own rules. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  Thank you, Madam Parliamentarian. 
	[Overlapping speakers.]  
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  And I get that.  Thanks very much. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  All right.  Do we have something in the Q&A box, Nancy?  You can get the next person ready. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I do.  This one came from anonymous person and it had to do with reading. 
	Isn't 3(3) 9?  I'm not sure what that means. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Basically, you know, when you write the word 3 and put the three in parenthesis, that's how it is and that's what it's read. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I have no other questions. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Doug Hall. 
	>> DOUG HALL:  It says vote.  Shouldn't it say affirmative vote?  What if the vote is no?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  What do you mean, what if the vote is no?  
	>> DOUG HALL:  Usually when you make a vote, it should say affirmative vote, it's a yes vote.  What if they voted to not do something?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Madam President?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  What we've done, what the Budget Committee does is reviews the items that are proposed for the budget.  So the budget, if those items come from staff of, you know, for example, Nancy, you know, calculates all the costs of the work, there's the salaries and the whatevers and the work, and then the budget also includes the work of the committee, so if you're on a committee and you propose something, that is factored into the budget.  So if the committee, if the Budget Committee votes no on a budget item, the item still goes forward to the board for consideration because it was part of the budget.  But the Budget Committee recommends that it not be budgeted.  And I've had that happen. 
	>> DOUG HALL:  So it doesn't matter if it's a yes or no vote. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  It doesn't matter ultimately because the board is the final say. 
	>> DOUG HALL:  Okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  But presumably if the Budget Committee is doing due diligence and good work, it's able to support why it says yes or no.  No, because it's usually yes.  Then they explain that to the board and the board ultimately decides.  So they should consider the Budget Committee's recommendation, but they may not take it. 
	>> DOUG HALL:  Okay. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Deb, you have 25 seconds of your five minutes. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  No queue. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Let's take one more and then we're done. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Ted. 
	>> TED CHITTENDEN:  How does the treasurer feel about the added responsibilities?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  There are no added responsibilities.  The treasurer has been on the budget committee since time immemorial.  The difference is that we have to decide that each year.  So basically what we've done, by making the treasurer mandatory and still keeping the same number of other people, is what the board's real intent here was to increase the committee by one person who is not the president or the treasurer.  So in other words, giving one more board member an opportunity, board member or officer who might not be part of this, an opportunity to weigh in for sort of more diversity. 
	So, in fact, we have an added treasurer who hasn't served on this in who knows when, if ever.  So it really doesn't change anything that way.  It just allows us to add a person. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Your time has expired. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  More than expired.  Lower all the hands.  Thank you very much for that.  As soon as you let me know if the hands are -- that the hands are lowered -- 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Yes, ma'am. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Looks like -- are they gone?  They look gone.  Okay.  Now, we will begin the debate.  And I will take up to five people who would like to speak against the budget amendment -- I'm sorry, the amendment, bylaw amendment to increase the Budget Committee.  So if there are hands for that, Sheila, will you call on them so we can find out who they are?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Jeanette. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Next person.  I'm only looking for people who wish to speak in opposition. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Niral. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You wish to speak in opposition to the amendment?  
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  That is correct. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Hang on.  Do we have anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the amendment?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Stephen, you may unmute.  He decided not to. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Anyone else asking to speak in opposition?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Ending in 17. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Pat. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  You may unmute. 
	>> CALLER:  This is a mistake.  I don't know how it happened. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  So you don't wish to speak in opposition.  Do we only have Niral?  I don't see -- 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Rebel Crafter, you may unmute. 
	>> COURTNEY SMITH:  I wish to speak against. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Anyone else wishing to speak against?  We have two. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Stephen, you may unmute.  Stephen Robertson, you may unmute. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  While we're waiting for him, maybe you can grab the next one as well, next in opposition. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Janeen, you may unmute. 
	>> STEPHEN:  Sorry, I accidentally raised my hand. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  I'll be against, please. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  So we have three, I believe.  I don't see any other hands.  Are there other hands?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  You have Niral, Courtney, and Janeen. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  And I don't see any other hands, we have three people speaking in opposition.  I can take up to four who wish to speak in favor. 
	I can also take two, as long as one of the sides is higher, but I'm willing to take up to four. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I'm one of the four, right?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You are one of the four.  John McCann. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I would hope. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Oh, I don't know. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  You have Jeanette, who already spoke. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Jeanette will be the second. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Paul Edwards, you may unmute. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Paul, are you speaking in favor?  
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  I am.  Thank you. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Hold on.  Not yet.  Three.  I can take one more. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Dorene, you may unmute.  Dorene?  
	>> DORENE CORNWELL:  Sure. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Will you be speaking in favor, Dorene?  
	>> DORENE CORNWELL:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That happens it up.  We have our speakers.  We are ready to go on that and let's start the clock for 20 minutes and who is our first speaker, Denise?  Positive, for speaker?  John McCann.  See, I'm not even -- okay.  Go ahead, John. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  I will try to be brief.  Deference to the board is a phrase I use very circumspectly in this organization, but I do think this was requested by the board, a matter of board governance. 
	If the board is okay with four, I don't think we should second-guess that.  This is an advisory board.  At the end of the day, they only advise.  The president is an ex officio member that could break the tie. 
	This puts the board in a position of not having to re-elect or reinstitute the treasurer in that position every year.  This is only ratifying a practice that has been going on, as Deb said, time immemorial. 
	The fact of the matter is, I don't know that you could have -- I don't know that you could have a credible Budget Committee without involving the treasurer, substantially involving the treasurer.  This amendment makes total sense. 
	It's matter of board governance, board procedure, and I'm shocked it has even engendered the number of people to speak against, as has happened.  But I urge in the strongest terms you allow the board to conduct the matter as it sees fit, with the management of its primary fiduciary responsibility to see to the effective and efficient management of the finances of this organization.  I therefore urge you to pass this amendment. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We'll have the first in opposition, which I believe was Niral. 
	>> NIRAL SHETH:  The reason why I'm against it -- I mean, I understand what -- the thing is, having an even number might cause a conflict.  What if one is in opposition and there's a tie?  I believe there should be an odd number, if there's someone that that can break the tie.  That's my opposition.  The reason for it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Thank you very much.  The next was Jeanette. 
	>> JEANETTE KUTASH:  Thank you for allowing me to speak.  Questions for -- the president would break the tie.  But secondly, I've been in organizations where I've discovered that not having the treasurer on the budgetary -- in the budgetary situation and that's a thing with all of this stuff, things went awry.  I have seen audits happen because people were not advised correctly.  I have seen documentations and expenses questioned because stuff like this happens.  I think the treasurer is -- really needs to be a part of the financial situation because the treasurer is the one that has to document and help document the expenses and the best way to do that is to always be aware, always know them, and always be able to ask questions.  Because the worst thing you want is for somebody to misdocument because somebody didn't know and then to have the IRS go after us.  As the group that we are. 
	>> Thank you.  Thank you, Jeanette.  All right.  Our next person in opposition was -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Courtney Smith. 
	>> COURTNEY SMITH:  The only reason I am opposed to this amendment is because the treasurer for whatever -- has a vote on the committee. 
	[Indiscernible] for the treasurer was a part of the budget. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You're breaking up. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  John McCann needs to mute. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  John, can you mute?  It's something on your internet.  Courtney. 
	>> COURTNEY SMITH:  But the only way I'm voting -- would be opposed to this is because from my understanding, the treasurer would have a vote on the Budget Committee and anything other than -- that has the treasurer on the Budget Committee, the treasurer was just an ex officio member and that would -- otherwise, I'm totally for it.  I'm not crazy about the idea of the treasurer having a vote on the committee. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  We have two more speakers, but before we take them, how much time do we have left?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  14 minutes and 38 seconds. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  If there are any additional people who would like to speak for or against this, I would like you to raise your hands now while we take our last two speakers, and our last for speaker was -- okay.  I'm not remembering. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  Madam president, while I was vice president, while I was president, and during all the time that I was on the board, there was never a time when the treasurer was not an inherent part of the Budget Committee. 
	The Budget Committee has an immensely difficult job to do. They have all kinds of things to juggle and all kinds of decisions that need to be made, and I think it's appropriate to add an additional member to the Budget Committee so there can be a division of labor and that everyone can have the opportunity to prepare what turns out to be two nights of presentations to the board.  The first night producing the expenditures and the second night -- sorry, the income, and the second night producing the expenditures so eventually the budget gets adopted, but it's a very long and drawn-out process, and I think adding another person to the committee is an absolutely appropriate thing and I'm really not concerned about the number four, though I think it's appropriate to raise it, because in all of that time, I am not aware of any instance where the Budget Committee found itself at odds. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  All right.  Our next speaker, I believe, would be Janeen.  Is that corrected?  
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes, Janeen Lea. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. 
	I am lucky enough to be on two budget committees and the treasurer is always a part of the committee.  I'm not sure if -- but usually there's a chair.  So like because there's chairs of committees.  I just worry about the evenness of the number.  Like if you -- I think having the even number.  And I understand that the president is -- what is that -- the president can be on the committee as well, but what if the president doesn't show up?  Or maybe they don't take an interest in that.  I love money and I love the budget.  I love doing budgets.  I love fundraising.  I love all these things.  But I do think, like the treasurer is already on this committee, so as you said, they have a committee forever, so I'm opposed to the number.  I think we should vote no on this number.  Like -- or maybe add another one so then it's even. 
	So like -- yeah.  In my chapters that I'm involved in, we do things a little different than national ACB, but I think that we should like -- yeah.  I think no for this, because I -- I urge people to say no because of the tie votes and the breaking of the tie because the treasurer is already involved anyway and three is a good number.  So thank you so much for the time.  I really appreciate it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you, Janeen, and I believe currently our last person speaking for is Dorene. 
	>> Correct. 
	>> DORENE CORNWELL:  This is Dorene Cornwell from Seattle. 
This sounds like a simplification of what is already a process.  I'm not worried about the issue of odd or even number.  As we've already said, with the president, there's five people and also because whatever comes out of the Budget Committee goes to the larger board.  So I want to thank the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for this work and hope we can all just make it simple and appreciate the hard work that's done by people looking after the financial affairs. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Thank you.  Did we receive any more requests to speak?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  No, ma'am. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Since we have no additional requests to speak, I'm going to close the debate time.  Do we need a motion for that or can I just do that?  Parliamentary question, please. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  As there is no one wishing to speak, you may close. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.  Some of this is new for me.  Okay.  We will close debate and close the discussion of the constitution and bylaws because we do not vote on this.  I'm not looking at the right panel.  Is Gabe Griffith here yet?  
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I'm not seeing him.  He's not here. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  He's going to join us.  He's in commute.  So I'm going to text him, but in the meantime, and he'll join us right away.  But I'm going to turn the meeting over to Ray Campbell. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  You have four hands raised. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We have another amendment, Deb. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I'm sorry.  Jeez Louise.  I'm so sorry. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I can't take credit for that.  I was in the other room. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I thought we'd done it all.  The other night we played them all together and I just kind of made it one.  I'm so sorry.  All right.  We're still going.  So John, are you -- would you like to introduce the -- if there's anyone who has their hand raised for anything other than to try to get me set straight about the amendment, we'll take your hand, if there's something related to that.  Otherwise, if you'll just lower your hand, we will go ahead with the second amendment. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  I'll give them a second to lower their hand.  If not, Terry Pacheco, you may unmute. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  Thank you.  I have a parliamentary question, I'd like to ask the parliamentarian.  It struck me odd that the ex officio member, in this case, an officer, the president, rather, has the ability to break a vote or to vote in general.  But yet you're saying the chair of the committee does.  And it's always been my understanding that the chair took priority over ex officio.  That's why we have so many ex officio members that could not vote on the board of publications for decades.  And is there a priority on that, and asking the parliamentarian for that question. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Members of the committee have a right to vote.  An ex officio member may vote but doesn't have to vote. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  The way this has worked in real life, the times I've been there, it's been really consensus voting. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  It has, definitely has, overall -- I just think maybe a little bit of clarification for some people. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Sure.  But really, it is a pretty collegial process.  Really, we're making recommendations.  If we were making a final decision, I think it would be a lot more formalized process.  But, you know, it just kind of -- we just come together with the executive officer, we come together with the Nancy and the Dan, whoever they are in that time frame, and we meet over this and we go through everything and we look for questions and we do or don't concern ourselves with them and there are many fixed costs, as you know, and that's how that goes.  All right. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  All right.  One more. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  Thanks. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Janeen. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Yeah, my question is about the next one. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You have to wait.  You have to wait.  Wait. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Okay.  No problem. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That means your hand needs to be down.  We can't tell the difference between someone when someone actually has a parliamentary question or a point of order question and just starting in ahead, so please don't.  Again, we are going to do the best welcome, giving a variety of people a chance to talk.  That's impossible to do entirely.  It's just too hard.  But to the extent we can, we are going to try to do that.  So that's also a piece. 
	John, would you like to introduce your other amendment that I forgot?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I would.  Thank you for all the hands going up.  I thought you were getting way ahead of things to make sure that Gabe was in the wings. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I should do that too. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  And come to find out you were going to pass by 2023-02.  I was a little bit concerned.  Okay.  I took another board [indiscernible] that year, so we are okay.  All is well.  
	And without further ado, then, the next bylaw amendment -- and I will say that per the terms of our constitution, we're a weird animal in this respect, but constitutional provisions were amendments of which there are none this year would require two-thirds, but a weird quirk of the way we run things, we have bylaws up in a separate section and they only require a majority vote.  So that is different than what we'll usually find is the case in our organization and that is readily documented in our convention. 
	2023-02, basically, may seem a little bit complicated, it is a rewrite of section B in bylaw 6 which speaks to the timing of one amendment of the timing of the Bylaws Committee to bring it in sync to that which already applies to the Resolutions Committee.  And we've eliminated some outdated language, which was aspirational anyway, whenever possible to submit it in ASCII format, and I'll tell why I think it's important.  
	>> Proposed amendment to Bylaw 6D to set the time for the appointment of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to coincide with that specified for the Resolutions Committee; setting a new deadline of sixty (60) days before the opening of the convention for submission of constitution and/or bylaws amendments to the committee; and striking the sentence referencing submission of amendments in ASCII format.  
	Bylaw 6:  Committees Current language:  D.  Constitution and Bylaws Committee:  At least ninety (90) days prior to the opening of each annual conference and convention, the President shall appoint a chairperson and at least four (4) additional members to a Constitution and Bylaws Committee.  This committee shall have the responsibility of considering and preparing amendments to the constitution and bylaws for presentation to the conference and convention.  All proposed amendments to the constitution and/or bylaws must be submitted in writing to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee on or before the end of the first day following the day of the roll call meeting of the conference and convention.  Amendments, whenever possible, shall be submitted electronically in ASCII text format.  
	The Constitution and Bylaws Committee must report all such written submissions, with or without committee recommendation.  Proposed amendment language:  D.  Constitution and Bylaws Committee:  The president, within sixty (60) days after the close of each national conference and convention, shall appoint a chairperson and not less than four (4) additional members to a Constitution and Bylaws Committee.  This committee shall have the responsibility of considering and preparing amendments to the constitution and bylaws for presentation to the conference and convention.  
	Any amendments to be considered shall be submitted to the committee not less than sixty (60) days prior to the opening date of each conference and convention.  The Constitution and Bylaws Committee shall report all proposed constitution and/or bylaw amendments to the conference and convention with or without committee recommendation.  End of bylaw amendment 2023-02. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Okay.  You've heard the amendment.  You've heard what our constitutional -- what our current language provides for.  And I think we should probably move to the -- and how it's going to change if this bylaw is adopted.  This is a do-pass recommendation from the committee.  I think it's time to move to the question period. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  So if you have a question, please raise your hand.  If you need clarification regarding anything related to this particular amendment, we will take those now.  And we have -- I see some hands.  Go ahead, Sheila. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Yes, area code 540.  Ending in 128.  You may unmute. 
	>> CALLER:  Thank you, this is [indiscernible].  Mr. Chair, question.  The current language that all amendments have to be submitted 60 days prior to convention, did I hear that right, as opposed to it being accepted up to the day after the roll call vote at convention?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Not the modified language.  The modified language would say 60 days before convention. 
	>> CALLER:  Okay.  Thank you. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Penny Moss. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  I'm confused about the 60 days before the convention and the day after the opening session, but in this new amendment, it's 60 days after the previous convention.  Is that correct?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  No.  No.  Let me clarify.  That required it to be appointed 90 days before the convention.  That's the old or existing language.  That has never been honored. 
	I was appointed on September 14th of 2021.  So as a practical matter, we are already appointing Constitution and Bylaws Committee much earlier in the same way as we have mandated for the -- resolution.  Okay. 
	Thank you.  So no, under the current constitution, you would have been entitled to give us an amendment up to June 20th.  Given our current hybrid environment, they need to prepare and circulate reports in both English and Spanish, we couldn't do anything with it.  You'd submit the amendment and say, guess what, under our current procedures, we couldn't do anything with it.  We couldn't prevent it from coming to the floor.  I'll speak more eloquently and expansively during the debate period, but we're putting something in place that's already been honored and making it a much more contemplative and reasonable consideration for the bylaws and constitutional, which go to the very governance of our organization.  Does that clarify?  
	>> PENNY MOSS:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  How much time do we have left?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  10 minutes and 43 seconds. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We can take another hand. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Do they come up with -- to submit to national?  
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Sorry.  Someone else was asking -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Sorry.  We were taking one of the Q&A boxes. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  That was the end.  Do state conventions ever come up with an amendment to submit to national?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If you want to submit an amendment to the bylaws from national, it could come from anyone.  A state could send it as an affiliate or an individual could bring it as an a amendment. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Piggybacking on this, I know we had a huge debate about this last year.  Florida has their convention usually a month before national's convention, and that would not make the 60 days if we wanted to make an amendment.  Would that new language change it so Florida could not propose an amendment or anything like that?  Would that change the way we are right now?  
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Could I speak to this, Madam Chair?  [Overlapping speakers] 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Wait, John, she said she's not finished. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  If I'm not asking this correctly, my president is here and she understands how I speak.  I want to make sure that Florida is not cut off because we bring our amendments and resolutions 60 days left. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  This is not resolutions.  This is not about resolutions. 
	>> JANEEN LEA:  Amendments.  If we change this language it would affect.  That's all I'm asking. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Do you have a comment, John, and then I do maybe as well. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Okay.  There is not a parallel structure for an end run -- I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that phrase, but an end run around the 60-day requirement.  In the world of resolutions, you can have something arise after the fact that really requires or cries out for the resolution, the Resolutions Committee to make an exception.  In matters of governance, I don't ever see a situation that something arises that you didn't foresee 60 days before.  So we didn't carve out an exception.  So there is not synchronicity between resolutions and constitution and bylaw amendments.  If they're proposed by a state or anyone within a state, they need to come in 60 days before the opening of the convention because there is no exception. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  And -- thank you.  And so we will take no more questions. 
	The follow-up, the difference between resolutions and these amendments, resolutions generally do come from the state because that's how they are generated.  So it makes sense that they would be in your convention, and we have made exceptions, although we have had people send us resolutions before they are passed in their state with the provision that if they pass, they want them considered here.  Bylaw amendments don't usually come that way.  So my recommendation in that case would be that if you're thinking you want a bylaw amendment, just submit it.  And then if you talk it over in your convention and you decide as a whole convention you don't want to submit it, that's fine.  But if an individual wants to submit it, they still can.  It's a very different animal, I think.  All right.  It is time for the debate, and we will lower all hands and I will ask for individuals who wish to speak in opposition to the amendment to please raise their hands and Sheila will begin to identify you.  I don't see any.  Are there?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  No, ma'am. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Then we will have John speak in favor of the amendment and we will not need to take other speakers.  John, go ahead and make the rest of your presentation, please. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  All right.  Very good.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I get very, very, very concerned when we wind up, even if it is perforce, not honoring our constitution.  The dirty little secret is that 6d, as it currently exists, is untenable.  I've spoken to this for some extent.  
	If you didn't come to us June 20th as you would have been entitled to do, the current Bylaws Committee would not have been able to do anything really with it.  Look what has happened this year.  You've had these constitutional amendments prepared, circulated, on media streams, available in both English and Spanish. 
	And let me share something else.  As chair of this committee, I used to think maybe this was a seven months, six months, half a year job.  I no longer think that.  I think it's a ten-month job.  If this passes, the committee will have to be appointed by early September.  If I'm still on that committee or chair of that committee, I'm going to begin work right away.  Right away.  And we are not going to wait until May to have open meetings.  That's not going to happen.  I plan to schedule regular open meetings, November, December, so that we can -- given the seriousness of the matters we have to consider going forward, given the cultural sea changes this organization is going to have to take on in order to make this hybrid mode of operating, virtual mode, we need a year-long constitution and Bylaws Committee.  I love constitution.  I love governance.  I want the opportunity to do this right and I think 6d makes that happen, put it in an environment where it can happen, should happen. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Thank you very much.  Now, I think -- I'm less confident than I was.  I think we have completed the discussion of the constitution and bylaw amendments.  All right.  Thank you, thank you so much, John.  That's absolutely great. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  Madam Chair, one quick question.  Would it be appropriate to have an official duty to come back on the link for the remainder of this?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Sheila would be glad to deport you.  Yes, she will send you over to the other side.  No problem.  Thank you so very much for your work and thank you to that committee.  It's a very lively group and they're doing a great job.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  I cannot do it because he came in as a panelist. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That's right. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  No, ma'am. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I'll just -- I just need a little bit -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We're fine.  It's fine, John.  So that's a new problem.  All right.  So it's not been the case.  Okay.  We're ready to continue on. 
	Gabe is, I believe, on his way.  I texted him.  And like I said, we're in his commute time, so it's a little bit tricky.  Let's go ahead and take the hands and see what we need to do. 
	>> PENNY MOSS:  Then I will need to discuss with members of my chapter who are not here -- 
	>> You can do that and there will also be each day after we finish our meetings, so tomorrow, for this one, these will be posted to the ACB, they have been sending out a file to that day so if you're not subscribed to a podcast player and can set up ACB business to have it rolled down to you each day, you can also go manually to the links that Kelly sends in the morning that will take you to that day's podcast and you can listen or download it and provide it to your members if they want to hear it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Any other questions before I turn it over to Ray?  Anything we need to consider?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Good evening, ACB.  I think it would be a good idea to play resolution 2023-16 one more time just so everyone is clear what we're voting on.  If we could play that, that could be fantastic.  
	>> 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.  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair, before you go too far, I have someone who is asking to make an amendment and then I have someone who is anonymous who has raised a concern, but I can't share that without being able to identify who you are, and we have the anonymous option turned on, which I have turned off, but if you don't identify who you are for the meeting, then you can't raise your point.  So you'll have to decide that and let us know. 
	But we have -- there was just -- before you begin this, because I wasn't over in the Q&A box, there was one clarification related to the topic that we were just doing with the bylaws that I wanted to go ahead and answer.  It was a technical -- sort of a point of order question asking why I didn't take people for and against and I asked for people who were against and when I didn't have any, I took one for because we take one more than the other number so that was zero and the one was John and then that completed the process of taking the debate.  So I wanted to just clarify that because I wasn't able to see that question.  So you do have an amendment request and then -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So I think what we should do -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  And now, I have the person who has identified themselves.  So I think the easiest thing would be to led you talk about that.  Amanda Selm, would you -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Hey, Amanda.  There she is. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Amanda, you may unmute. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, Amanda.  Go right ahead. 
	>> AMANDA SELM:  Hi, Ray, I understand you have a strong opinion about this resolution, so I am wondering if it would be best for you to hand over the chair to Denise while we debate this resolution, just so you have the opportunity to take your side. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let me say this, Amanda.  I would say this and -- I certainly -- I think we all have opinions.  I think my job, my job here -- I know my job here is to make sure that the debate is conducted fairly and with everybody given an equal opportunity to present. 
	This is different than last night.  Last night was an issue where there was a perceived or maybe a real conflict of interest.  This one, I feel like no matter what my opinion is on a subject, I think I've demonstrated over the years that I will conduct things fairly and equitably and will not at all let my feelings play into any of the discussion.  And I think I can do that.  I think I can do that fairly well, and, you know, if anyone is seeing that I'm not, please raise it.  I welcome that. 
	>> AMANDA SELM:  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you, Amanda.  Thank you for raising the point, Amanda.  I request it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Doug Powell has asked to be able to offer an amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I think we'll do that first because that may change the path we're on. 
	Mr. Powell, as soon as you get unmuted, let's hear your amendment. 
	>> DOUG POWELL:  I motion that the third whereas clause be deleted.  It sounds to me like there's an assumption that ACVREP will try to be certified skills that are not in the vision rehab services arena, and in all my discussions that I've heard, there doesn't seem to be any inkling that they would do that.  So I think that paragraph is confusing and unnecessary. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Could we have that third whereas clause read, please?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Hold on.  I'm not reading anything, am I?  Nancy, do you have the resolution there?  Because I didn't open the resolutions yet.  I'm kind of messed up here. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I do. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The third whereas, please. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I am here.  I'm on a bus, but I am here. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  If this isn't right, stop me.  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. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Your motion we just heard is that that clause we just heard be deleted.  Is that all you're asking?  
	>> DOUG POWELL:  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair, I'm not laughing at the people.  I'm laughing because I keep interrupting you.  Koni Sims has a point of order and her point of order is she announced last night when she was going to speak in opposition that she had an amendment and she wondered if her amendment is not in fact on the floor. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let me ask the parliamentarian about that. 
	Last night, Ms. Sims said she was going to propose an amendment and now the amendment has been proposed.  I'm going to defer to the parliamentarian on that. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Yes, that was unfinished business and had she given her amendment last night?  I don't know. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  She just said she had one. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  She had one and we passed her and she was asked to be acknowledged in opposition. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Yes, she's in line. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So Doug, your amendment, at this point we're going to rule that out of order so we can take Koni's.  It was late last night, guys. 
	>> DOUG POWELL:  Not a problem. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I'm going to go back into the order I was planning to do things in last night, because I think that is the most fair, and Koni was going to propose her amendment at the time she spoke.  So I think I think we will proceed in that direction we were last night. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Mr. Chair, you have a hand raised. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, Paul. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Go ahead, Paul.  I guess he changed his mind. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's go down the path we were heading.  We have our five speakers to speak against the resolution and in one case offered they would like to offer an amendment.  So we would like anyone who would like to speak for the resolution, please raise your hand. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Excuse me, Ray, aren't we going to need to take the amendment first?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni said she would do it at the time she spoke. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  But we would have to speak on the amendment then. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  If the amendment is not viewed as friendly, yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Just asking. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  I want to do this right. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I know, I know, I know.  I agree.  I'm just asking because -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I appreciate it.  I appreciate it.  Deb, I always appreciate all the coaching, as always.  So we've got people with their hands up, and hopefully one of them is Michael Byington or someone who is the maker of this resolution. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  I believe Lori is, isn't she?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Lori is one of them, yes. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  She has her hand raised.  Lori, you may unmute. 
	>> LORI SCHARFF:  I spoke last night, so I'll yield back to other people at this time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you.  Who do we have?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  All right.  I believe this is Mitch, 626. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That sounds like it would be Mr. Pomerantz, are you speaking in favor?  
	>> MITCH POMERANTZ:  Absolutely, I am speaking in favor of this resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So you are number one on my list. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Doug, you have your hand raised.  Doug, you may unmute. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Going once -- 
	>> DOUG POWELL:  I got it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There you are.  You're speaking for?  Okay. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Doug?  
	>> DOUG POWELL:  Yes, I'm speaking for.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Doug is the second one.  Alice, you may unmute. 
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're speaking for.  Got you down, Alice. 
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're welcome.  Okay.  That's three on my list. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Michelle, you may unmute. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Michelle, are you speaking for?  
	>> MICHELLE:  Yes, I'm speaking for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That's four.  I can take one more. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Ann or Michael Byington, you may unmute. 
	>> MICHAEL BYINGTON:  I'm unmuted. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You're speaking for, Michael?  
	>> MICHAEL BYINGTON:  Yes, sir. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  I almost erred there.  I almost said Michael is representing one of the makers, so I'm going to allow for one more so we have our one more than the other side.  So the con side. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Terry Pacheco. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  I am most definitely speaking in favor of this resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All righty.  I'm going to follow Deb's practice, so when we get to four in favor, I'm going to ask if there are -- see what time we have left, and then I will see if others that would like to speak.  We can't line them up necessarily, but you'll be raising hands and when everyone who has asked to speak has already spoken, we will begin to take next speakers until we run out of debate time. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Michael Byington did have his hand up when you were asking someone to speak as the writer. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I got him.  We're going to put him first. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I just wasn't sure if you had him on your list.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We sure do.  Thank you.  So parliamentarian Denise, if you would start the clock, please, and our first speaker is going to be Michael Byington. 
	>> MICHAEL BYINGTON:   Certification is a complex and difficult issue.  I realize that.  This resolution, however, is actually quite simple and straightforward and easy to understand.  The issue is that ACVREP announced it was going to do this certification and then after that announcement was made, they started making their usual excellent efforts in asking for input.  Now, why is that a problem?  Why should they have asked information from the field before doing the certification?  There are actually two precedents involved here that they're setting that have not been done before in doing this type of certification.  Number one, this is the first time in ACVREP history that they have actually weakened a requirement for certain types of practice to be done in any blindness field. 
	The second issue is that they have not ever before proposed to certify a group of individuals who are not primarily, by nature, involved in necessarily the service of people who are blind and visually impaired. 
	Those issues are why the resolution requests that they go back and cease efforts on this until they have asked the entire field that question.  Is this certification a good idea to do or not?  And that's what the resolution requests.  I know there has been a lot of debate already so I will yield the rest of my time to others and I want to thank everyone for their careful consideration of this matter. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You didn't have much time left, Michael.  All right.  We will take the first person on the list to speak against, which I believe would be Koni Sims. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Yes, that's correct. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni, you may go ahead.  Koni, can you unmute?  Don't start her clock until we -- 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  She's not got her hand raised. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Koni, you need to raise your hand. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  There she is.  Koni, go ahead, you may ask. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Before you start, I've asked for a point of order to the box.  I would ask our parliamentarian, because I do feel that you are out of order, Ray, because I did not agree to what you said last night.  I was told that I had to do my amendment with my speech, so that takes up my five minutes rebuttal, and I would need a second to this and that is not fair if you are going to give Doug precedence over me, so I would like to have some clarification and I think that this is not being done fairly. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let me -- well, I'll yield to the parliamentarian, but let me just say that the only reason I was in error, going to put Doug ahead of you, unintentionally, was that he had requested to do an amendment, and that's why I asked the parliamentarian, do I need to -- 
	>> KONI SIMS:  I'm sorry, Ray.  But this was unfinished business.  It was notated down.  You specifically said on leadership today that you did not want any amendment passed.  You were strong in your opinion.  So I would like the parliamentarian to find out if me having to have an amendment, that I have a right to amend it and see if I can have a second. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You asked -- you absolutely do, and I will defer over to Denise. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Yes, an amendment, when it's posed, needs a second and is open to debate. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Denise, I didn't catch what you -- what did you say there?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  When an amendment is made -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It needs a second. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So Koni has moved to amend the motion -- resolution, excuse me.  Can we -- Denise, should I ask about the text of the amendment first?  Or should I wait until it's -- probably should -- okay.  I'm not -- I'm not quite sure what I need to do here.  We know we need to get a second on it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You need to hear the amendment and get a second. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's what I thought.  Okay.  So Koni, if you could read your amendment and -- which you are moving, and we will go for a second, and then, folks, we will be debating the amendments.  Okay. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  So my first part of my amendment is exactly the whereas clauses, I can read all of that if you would like. 
	Otherwise, I would just go down to resolve part and my resolve clauses are as stated.  Now, therefore, be it resolved that American Council of the Blind will have the Executive Director write a letter to ACVREP expressing our profound objection and disappointment that ACVREP is moving forward with this certification and training without having offered a formal invitation for ACB to participate in their stakeholder listening process and, therefore, be resolved that this organization calls upon the staff and board of ACVREP to formally act in a meaningful and engaging dialogue with ACB and in any further development of the new OT training and certification. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So Koni, just to make sure that I'm clear, you are basically replacing the existing resolve clause with those two.  Is that correct?  
	>> KONI SIMS:  That is correct. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Okay.  So that is the motion on the floor, to amend this resolution to replace the current existing -- currently existing resolve clause with the two that Koni just read.  Is there someone who would be minded to second that motion?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Ray, there's a problem, because you have several hands and I'm not real sure which one might want to second, so -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Just take them until we get somebody to second. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Okay.  So Doug. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Anisio Correia is seconding it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It's been moved and seconded to amend the resolution 2023-16 by replacing the current therefore clause, excuse me, with the two resolve clauses that Koni just read. Okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  I have a point of order from Michael Byington.  Michael, are you raised hand -- is Michael's hand up?  You're open.  You have access. 
	>> MICHAEL BYINGTON:  My point of order is that that is such a complete rewrite that it is not an amendment.  It should be a substitute motion.  Thank you. 
	>> LORI SCHARFF:  This is Lori, as the other person who assisted.  I agree with Michael. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I will defer to the parliamentarian. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Substitute is a form of amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So she's substituting language and she did not write it -- rewrite any of the whereas clause, she just is substituting the two resolve clauses. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  And Ray, that's where you start when you amend a resolution is with the resolve clauses and then you go to the whereas clauses if you have to change something there. 
	But there are three forms of amendment.  Amend by striking out, amend by inserting, and amending by substitution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So what you are telling me is that this motion and second is valid.  Is that correct?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Correct. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Okay.  So you've heard the parliamentarian.  Koni's motion can move forward.  So we are now going to debate the amendment that has been proposed, motion by Koni Sims, with a second from Anisio. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I've had a request by Chris Bell that the entire thing be read.  I don't know if you could do that or if you'd like Nancy to read -- he would like the whole thing.  He would like the current whereas clauses and the new resolve clauses.  So the entire resolution as it would read in its entirety. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So he wants -- what he's asking -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  From the top. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is how this would sound if it were -- if we were to adopt this amendment. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes.  And I need to step away for just two seconds for the plumber.  So I'll be right back. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  All right.  So is there someone who -- Koni, do you have Koni's substitute language?  
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I do.  Whereas the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals was established in order to enhance the stature of the highly specialized 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 will have the Executive Director write a letter to ACVREP expressing our profound objection and disappointment that ACVREP is moving forward with this certification and training without having offered a formal invitation to ACB to participate in their stakeholder listening process and be it further resolved that this organization calls upon the staff and board of ACVREP to formally act in a meaningful and engaging dialogue with ACB and any further development of the new OT training and certification. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So if we adopt this amendment, that is how the resolution would sound.  And thank you, Chris. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  And I have returned. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Very good.  Now we're going to go about debating the amendment.  The first thing we will do, and we will -- Koni, stay there.  Stay there in case there are any questions.  So we're going to start the clock now for our five minutes. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Mr. Chair, may I ask you a question, as the host?  We've got previous hands and we've got more hands.  Do you want me to lower -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Take all hands down. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  While you're doing that, Carla asks -- would like to hear the whole thing as it originally was. 
	>> DOUG POWELL:  Come on. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We did that at the opening this morning, but Ray, she's asking, I think, to compare.  Carla, would it work for you if we read the two sets of resolves?  Because the whereases are the same either way. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The whereases are the same. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Is Carla's hand up?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  No, ma'am. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Carla, if you'd like to raise your hand, the question is, would it work if we just read the two sets of resolve clauses so you could hear those, what currently reads and what is being proposed to read. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  We do have an 810.  Never mind.  I know that's not Carla.  810 area code, you may go ahead and ask your question.  Carla, you may -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There she is.  Good. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Carla, go ahead. 
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  Yes, thank you.  Yes, I think Chris had originally asked that both the original and the amending language be read.  That's how I understood it.  I would like to hear the original as well as the amending language.  We've already heard the amending, so let's hear the original again. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Can we just -- the whereases are the same.  Can we just read the resolve?  
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  Yes, the resolve. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's do that, then. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  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.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Ray, this is Koni. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, Koni. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  When you ask for the pros and cons, I will be able to speak on my behalf?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You absolutely will.  As the maker of the amendment, you will be able to speak first out of the chute for. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You betcha.  We will start the clock for 5:00 if there are any questions or clarifications, and we have Koni here so she can help answer those. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Viola, you may unmute. 
	>> VIOLA BENTSON:  Am I correct in understanding, Koni, basically what you did is make it stronger?  Is that right?  A bit stronger.  Is that right?  
	>> KONI SIMS:  Yeah.  What I'm doing is basically the other one is asking us to basically stop everything.  I'm asking that we, our Executive Director, write a harsh letter letting them know how we feel and then we -- then we go in and we pick up and work with them -- 
	>> VIOLA BENTSON:  The resolution, when you did that, it made things a lot clearer.  So thank you.  And that's -- that's what I thought, but I just wanted you to clarify for me.  Thank you. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  You're welcome. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Okay.  Christy Delmonico. 
	>> CHRISTY DELMONICO:  I wonder if we could possibly as a friendly amendment that we put part of the language back in where it says -- stop, because I -- I don't think that ACVREP is going to listen to us and they are going to just go ahead and do what they want. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  I would say no to that.  Part of the reason I wrote this, they are going to do what they want to do, and they are a partner with us, and the stakeholder, we want to be a part of this, and we don't just want to cease and desist.  So I think that they -- they know how we feel in our letter that we write, that should be very harsh and very stern, and we come to the table and it's no different than us partnering with, let's say, Amazon or Microsoft or anything in the past when we have been brought in late.  Let's still come to the table and participate. 
	>> CHRISTY DELMONICO:  I agree with that, and -- in the field.  Thank you, Koni, for making this stronger. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  All right. 	Cheryl. 
	>> CHERYL CUMINGS:  Hi, Koni.  So I actually disagree that you made this resolution stronger because -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Cheryl, that's debate. 
	>> CHERYL CUMINGS:  Hold on.  If people are able to ask a question saying how does this make it stronger, I want Koni to talk to me about how this is making it not stronger, because it seems like writing a letter and saying oh, we disagree is significantly different than saying stop what you're doing.  So help me understand. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You're in order.  Okay. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  So if we stop and tell them that, to completely stop, what good is that?  What I referred to last time in 2021-01, and I know some people disagree with me, but if you really look at it and compare the two resolutions, we are asking for training of all healthcare providers and ACVREP is a party, a partner that we can use to help utilize that. 
	And if we just don't want to have them be at the table with us, then what good is that going to be?  I mean, because they're going to do what we want to do.  We can't make them -- we can tell them to stop and cease doing this, but how are we going to truly make them do that?  Their organization -- we don't have the power to make them do that.  So if we can do a letter and strongly state our case, then we should be able to come to the table, then, and help them make this better for the OTs, because OTs want this, and I think that it would be a stronger case if we can show, yeah, we're upset with you, but yeah, we still want to have a part of this party, and let's go forward. 
	>> CHERYL CUMINGS:  Can I say something or -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, go ahead, Cheryl.  Then I think we're going to be at time. 
	>> CHERYL CUMINGS:  The '21 resolution watered it down to sending a letter and nothing changed so I don't know how watering it down again and sending a letter will change anything.  I don't see your amendment as strengthening our position. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Okay.  I think we're out of time. 
	Okay.  Let's lower all hands, please.  Because we are now about to begin debate.  And remember, we are debating the amendment, which has been brought forward by Koni Sims, and -- okay.  Let me know when they're all down, please. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  We've had some comments from people that feel that the Q&A was largely debate and should be deducted from the opposition side, just as a matter of -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm not going to -- I'm not going to -- it was close, but I could see it going either way, but -- so -- we'll move ahead.  All right.  We now have all hands down.  Let us see, is there anyone wishing to speak against the amendment being proposed by Koni Sims?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  All right.  Let's see.  Betsy, you may unmute.  Betsy Grenevitch. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Are you speaking against?  
	>> BETSY GRENEVITCH:  Yes, I'm speaking against the amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That's one. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Karyn Campbell.  Karyn?  
	>> KARYN CAMPBELL:  I wish to speak against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's number 2. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Debbie Grubb, you may unmute. 
	>> DEBBIE GRUBB:  Yes, I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We've got you down.  That's three in opposition. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Jean Mann, you may unmute.  All right.  Don Horn, you may unmute. 
	>> DON HORN:  Yes, I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's four.  We can take one more. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  David, you may unmute. 
	>> DAVID DUNPHY:  David, I would like to speak against the amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So we have the five against.  If we could lower all hands, please. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Hang on.  It's not letting me get there.  All right.  I got it.  I got it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We've got them all down, then, Sheila?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Yes, sir. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Very good.  All those wishing to speak in favor of the amendment, please raise your hands. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  All right.  Chris Bell, you may unmute. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Yes, I will speak in favor of the amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  That would be one.  And any more?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Dorene, you may unmute. 
	>> DORENE CORNWELL:  Yes, thank you, my name is Dorene Cornwell from Seattle, and I would like to speak in favor of the amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's two. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Pat Sheehan, you may unmute. 
	>> PAT SHEEHAN:  I will speak in favor. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Okay.  Chris Gray, you may unmute. 
	>> CHRIS GRAY:  I'll speak in favor. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We'll take one more. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Carla, you may unmute.  Carla Ruschival.  One more time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Carla. 
	>> CARLA RUSCHIVAL:  Yes, I would like to speak in favor. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Excellent.  That will be our five.  Now, I will follow, before we start the clock, I'm going to follow Deb's lead and so when we get to our fourth person for, I will ask if there are any -- I will ask how much time we have of the parliamentarian and then I will ask if there's anyone else wishing to speak on the amendment, and depending how much time we have, I will tell you that, you know, we'll take a few people, give you an idea of how many time we can take.  Of course, at the end of the first 20 minutes, you have the option to extend debate if you so choose.  With all that said, we are going to go to our first speaker, and that would be the maker of the amendment, Koni Sims. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Thank you, Ray.  So I've said a lot of my stuff already, but I'm going to repeat a little bit of it.  ACB has always accomplished our goals when we work with our partners in collaboration and collegial margin, creating products and services that benefit blind people as a whole.  What my amendment proposes we do, we continue along this path.  It acknowledges that ACVREP has come up short in its responsibility to work with its stakeholders to provide meaningful input.  In their OT certification process it also allows ACB to go forward with a seat at the table, to correct the deficiencies in their current proposal.  The current resolution does not allow for this, but does ask ACVREP to cease and desist with the current process.  There are two problems with that approach. 
	The first is that most likely ACVREP will continue with their development along with a given path or without our input.  Do we really want that?  We are the stakeholders, and we need to be able to work with them. 
	The second one is that we don't want to have -- this is my way or the highway approach in the current resolution.  It is not the ACB way to do business or consistent with the history and core values.  When we had issues with Microsoft and IE browsers' compatibility, did we turn our backs on Microsoft and give Microsoft an ultimatum?  When we worked with quiet carve [phonetic], we worked with them. 
	And I could go on.  We have our core values, and we need to remember, we collaborate.  We are family.  We go forward, and we work together and we want to make this better for everyone and I have researched their website and they really truly are trying to make things better for the blind and low vision.  And we need to be able to partner with them. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Time. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Not against them.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Our next speaker against is Betsy Grenevitch.  
	>> BETSY GRENEVITCH:  It says ACB and you're leaving out a lot of stakeholders.  It shouldn't just be ACB with them, and a letter will not work.  It should be stakeholders and it should be all stakeholders. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  Thank you.  Our next person speaking in favor is Chris Bell. 
	>> CHRIS BELL:  Thank you.  First of all, I think the resolution as it was originally written with the whereas clauses makes an incorrect assumption that the only relevant stakeholders are people in the vision rehabilitation services sector.  I think the most important stakeholders are the people that are experiencing vision loss who aren't getting their services or their needs met. 
	So I think it is an improvement to go from a whereas clause which is "just say no" to a whereas clause that "we'll work with you." Thank you.  They may not do that.  I think it's worth trying, and honey is better than vinegar. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Terry Pacheco has a proposed friendly amendment.  I don't think she's in the queue, is she?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  She's not in the queue. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Yes, she is. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Then we can take it there.  We need to take it -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I don't know.  I need to know with this, because if somebody wants to propose an amendment -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  She is hoping it's friendly.  If you want to take her in the queue -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It might change people's minds about it. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So you want to take the friendly -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  What would be the recommendations?  One of the problems with our standing rules, you can propose an amendment anywhere.  I guess it's not real clear what I should do here.  I don't want to get in more trouble. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  Ray, I'll tell you, it's only four words.  [Laughter].  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Unless anybody objects -- let's hear it, and -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Ray, if she takes it as friendly, you're fine and -- [Overlapping speakers.] Yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So go ahead, Terry. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  Okay.  And the paper, it says that the letter has to be written -- it should be sent by the Executive Director.  All the request is -- it's coming from both myself and my husband, so he'll second this if you want.  As approved by the board of directors. 
	>> DEBBIE:  No.  No. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Terry, this is Koni.  So you are saying you would like to have -- the Executive Director in the approval of the board of directors?  
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  No, I'm saying the board of directors would approve the letter that the Executive Director is going to send. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  Right.  Thank you.  That's what I mean, when we have written letters before, when the Executive Director has written a letter, then the board approves it when we've had problems with other stakeholders.  I would take that as a friendly amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  You'll take -- okay.  Thank you. 
	>> TERRY PACHECO:  Thank you. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Can you repeat that?  I'm sorry. 
	>> KONI SIMS:  She wants to add now, therefore, be it resolved that the American Council of the Blind will have the Executive Director write a letter with the board -- with the ACB's board approval, will be sent to the ACVREP. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Basically, the Executive Director writes it and the board approves it.  I think we understand the gist and Koni took it as friendly.  We will continue on.  Next person speaking in opposition, I believe. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Karyn Campbell. 
	>> KARYN CAMPBELL:  Okay.  I should still be unmuted. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes, you are. 
	>> KARYN CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Great.  I think this amendment weakens the resolution considerably and we need to speak with a strong voice because if we don't, there are vulnerable populations such as DeafBlind, older Americans losing vision, and blind and visually impaired with other disabilities who will lose out in a big way.  I urge a no vote on this amendment. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  Okay.  Next person speaking for. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Dorene Cornwell. 
	>> DORENE CORNWELL:  Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.  The friendly amendment does not change my view.  Strongly in favor of this amendment.  I think actually there are not enough people serving clients, visually impaired people.  I see this as occupational therapists reaching out and saying, we want to be a part of it.  So that if you're an occupational therapist, employed, for example, in a retirement committee with members losing vision, you're willing to take the initiative to say, how can I better serve the people I work with.  I strongly support ACB being proactive about saying we want to be a part of this conversation and other people have said that the ACB -- sorry, the other organization, is going to go ahead regardless of whether ACB is involved or not. 
	I feel like if we can speak on behalf of ACB if we want to reach out to other blindness organizations like NFB or AFB's program or we can suggest that the second organization reach out to them as well.  But if we're writing a resolution for ACB, I'm quite satisfied that we're saying as much that needs to be said. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I have a point of order from Peter Heide.  He asked if the seconder of the original amendment is okay, is approving the friendly amendment, not the -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That would be Anisio.  Anisio, do you take that amendment of the board of directors as friendly?  Okay.  Can we get Anisio's hand up or get him to write something into the Q&A box?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, he says yes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Very good.  And did miss that.  Sorry about that.  Okay.  My next person speaking in opposition is -- 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Debbie Grubb. 
	>> DEBBIE GRUBB:  I want to remind us of a couple of things.  When an organization refuses to include us in something as important as what we're doing, we are not partners.  Just take that in mind.  We are not equals.  They want to give us a place at the table on their sufferance and to make it look good, like we are included. 
	Second of all, I don't think anybody who cares about all segments of our population would object to occupational therapists being properly trained to work with our people. 
	But the standard in this resolution, people, is greatly lower than the standard that other individuals trained in our field have to abide by.  So that is an extremely important thing.  And if we're not partners and we're not equals, we need to know it now. 
	The final thing I'll say, the resolution does not tell them to stop forever.  It says a temporary hold or stop until we can work out the various aspects of this entire practice.  So I urge you to think about what everyone has said here and to vote against this amendment and for this resolution in its original form.  Thank you very much for your time. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mr. Chair, there's a lot of people expressing concern that the debate on the amendment is really debate on the resolution.  I need you to just clarify. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm going to say it's not because you do have to talk a little bit to the original resolution to make your point on the amendment.  So I was watching that.  I don't feel that she went -- went over the line there.  So I'm -- I'm good with -- I'm good with what Debbie said, I think.  She only talked about the original resolution to make her point against the amendment, I felt. 
	Okay.  Before I go on, Madam Parliamentarian, how much time do we have?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  12 minutes. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We've got 12 minutes.  We can probably take five or six more, up to five or six more.  So if you'd like to speak on this amendment, please get your hands up and we will -- 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Ray, you've got a list of people already. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Sheila, I know that.  Basically, any new people who would like to speak.  Just like we did with the other thing.  All right.  Number 4, speaking in favor, I believe is Chris Gray. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  That's correct. 
	>> CHRIS GRAY:  Okay.  I'll be pretty brief here.  I don't see how this new set of resolve clauses weakens this resolution. I'm voting for it because it strengthens the resolution, and it needs to be strengthened. 
	This is a situation where ACB is basically being blown off by an organization with whom we are supposed to be working.  It's not happening this time.  And I feel that ACB needs to be far stronger than it has been in this area.  I don't care if these folks are partners, quote/unquote, or not.  In this case, they have not been good partners, and that's the point. 
	I belong to ACB because we're a strong advocacy organization, because when we believe in something, we stand for it. 
	This set of resolve clauses does this far better than the resolves of the original resolution, and I'm very happy to see it here.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Thank you.  Next person speaking in opposition. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Don Horn. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead, sir. 
	>> DON HORN:  I'm in opposition to the amendment for a couple of reasons.  One is the -- what the original amendment does -- the wording may not be great, but what the original amendment -- what the original language, rather, what the original language does is it -- it enumerates the reasons that this is particularly grave in this instance, i.e., this is the first time that ACVREP is looking at certifying a profession that is not unique to blindness.  I also think -- I don't think that the letter needs to be strong or nasty, but I think we have a better chance of getting ACVREP to understand our point if we delineate that. 
	I don't think it has to be oppositional, although I do think we need to say that the blind community needed to be consulted.  But I actually think that ACVREP, if we delineated, because this is a major change to the type of certifications that ACVREP has been involved in, if they see that, they may very well say, oh, yeah.  This is a really valid point. 
	Whereas if we weaken it and just send a letter saying you didn't include us, I think that makes it weaker because it's what them to think about.  I don't think it has to be oppositional. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Don, and next speaker for would be Carla Ruschival. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  Mr. Chair, I actually -- I actually misspoke.  I apologize to the person.  I skipped him and I didn't mean to.  Pat Sheehan. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Pat Sheehan.  Okay.  This is -- go ahead, Pat, you go ahead for and we have one more against and -- 
	>> PAT SHEEHAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I was wondering where I am.  I am speaking in favor of this.  I think that for a couple of things, and Koni, I'd like to actually ask for a friendly amendment on this, Betsy Grenevitch said it would be strong if we included all stakeholders in the letter and I would like to see that included in the letter, so when we write the letter, we're not just talking about ACB but talking to all stakeholders.  That would be my first request.  Would you consider that to be friendly?  
	>> KONI SIMS:  Yes, I would. 
	>> PAT SHEEHAN:  Okay.  Good.  Thank you for that.  Secondly, I think that the letter is an important tool for us moving forward because it's going to help us articulate our point of view.  If you don't have the letter and speaking just to this, all you're going to have a cease and desist.  We're in opposition, and that's it.  The question that I would ask the individuals who will be voting on this is, what happens if they decide to say no?  You have no alternatives.  What Koni is giving us here is an alternative where we get to articulate our points, why they are important, how we want to move forward, and what we want to do.  What I see moving forward is that we want to have everyone have the equivalent certification with both groups.  We can do that much better if we're sitting at the table than if we have been ostracized from the table and not able to speak to individuals.  As Koni indicated earlier, when we had issues with Microsoft back in the old browser days with IE4, we turned our backs. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Liz asked for the seconder to accept Pat's friendly amendment.  Ray Campbell he did.  You hold me he did. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That was the other friendly amendment.  [Overlapping speakers].  Yes, he did.  But I just wanted to -- every time you get one, you have to ask the seconder. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You guys are good.  All right.  Next person against, the last person against is --
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  David. 
	>> DAVID DUNPHY:  I'll make this brief.  I think both have awesome qualities that make them great.  I like being nice to people so I don't mind giving honey instead of vinegar and you know what I am tired of and that's why I had to speak against the amendment, how I come into work and come into the world, and we've all experienced this.  There's a new process in place, our input wasn't sought and trying to put accessibility into it is a nightmare with a lot of moving parts like certification has a lot of moving parts.  If we ask to implement ideas to see where they're at and try to correct the problems before they come up as much as we can in the process.  You know, measure twice, cut once sort of thing. 
	I think that would make a more efficient resolution and make sure we're serious about the certification being done for those who want to get involved in the action.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  And our last person speaking for for this group is Carla Ruschival.  There we go.  Carla, you need to unmute. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  She is unmuted. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead, Carla.  Carla is showing as unmuted. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Check your microphone, Carla. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Check your mic.  You may have -- I really -- I really -- I'm going to be unfair if I don't take your point, but if we can't get her on here, I'm not quite sure what else to do. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You could take one more for. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Why don't you -- okay.  Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for?  Carla seems to be having some technical issues or something there. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Well, Jean Mann. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Jean, are you speaking for the amendment?  
	>> JEAN MANN:  No, I'm speaking against. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Do we have anybody?  
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Liz Bottner, go ahead and unmute. 
	>> LIZ BOTTNER:  I will speak for it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Why don't we take you now. 
	>> LIZ BOTTNER:  I am speaking as a blind rehab professional.  I've worked in the blind center environment of both inpatient and outpatient and we need everybody at the table in terms of providers and as blind rehab specialists, we are medical providers so I don't think there's a conflict with the previous resolution, 2021-01. 
	And we need to be a part of the table where a certification is happening or not with ACVREP, we need to be there and with the resolution, how it currently stands, we are not at the table, I don't think.  I feel like this amendment is a better thing for us as an organization and as a blind committee in terms of the professionals that would come out of that certification, and we need to be at the table and this amendment helps us do that.  Thank you. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  Thank you.  So we had one more on the pro side than on the con side.  How much time do we have, Denise? 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  Two minutes.  Now, it's 1:55. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's try to take each way before we have to extend debate.  We had Jean Mann wanting to speak against.  So go ahead, Jean.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> Someone needs to be muted.  I think it's Liz. 
	>> LIZ BOTTNER:  Sorry. 
	>> JEAN MANN:  I don't think this harsh letter is going to be any different.  We've already told them we're not happy with them.  We don't know they're going to stop what they're doing whether how harsh of a letter we write or whether we write one or not but the specific letter says we want you to stop until we get a chance to sit down with you and others, you know, we and other stakeholders get a chance to sit down with you, and I personally think that's the direction to go.  If I understand what Koni wants to do correctly, she wants to write a harsh letter saying we're not happy with them and we want to talk to them, but there's nothing in her letter that says we want you to stop doing until we talk to you.  So I'm going with the original resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  How are we doing on time, Denise?  
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  17 seconds. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  We're probably not going to get somebody able to speak in 17 seconds.  So what I would like to do, because we are about to the end of our first 20-minute debate period, I would like to see if there's someone who is minded to make a motion to extend debate.  Raise your hand if you'd like to make said motion.  Or put it in the QA box.  If you would be motioning to extend the debate for up to an additional 20 minutes. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  David Tanner, you may unmute. 
	>> DAVID TANNER:  I move to extend the debate time. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Up to an additional 20 minutes.  Is there someone minded to second that motion?  Do we have any hands there, Sheila?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Lynne Koral will second. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It has been moved and seconded that we extend debate for up to an additional 20 minutes.  Okay.  Let's lower all hands, please.  Are they down?  Okay.  All those voting in favor of extending the time of debate on the amendment for up to an additional 20 minutes, please raise your hand. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  I'm not sure how much time you want to give them. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  We have settled. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  So you can lower those hands.  And Nancy will lower them in the panel. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Sorry, Ray, I've been sleeping here.  All hands are down.  Sorry. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Not a problem. 
	All those who wish to vote against extending debate for an additional 20 minutes on the amendment, please raise your hand. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  We have settled.  The vote for extending the debate is 12 for and 173 against.  And there is 232 participating in Zoom. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  There being the vote to extend debate has failed, so we will now proceed to the vote on the amendment.  And it's been a little while.  I know this will take a little extra time, but I think we should read the original resolve clause and what the new resolve clauses would be, just to make sure everybody -- 
	>> ALICE RITCHHART:  Ray, could Sheila put me back so I can have a hand so I can vote, please?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All right.  That would be Alice Ritchhart. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  I haven't touched Alice. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  She's able to talk.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Somehow she still has permission to talk. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  That's because she was in the original group that was in the original, original. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Oh, I understand. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Way back when.  Way back. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Alice, you should be fine. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  You can raise and lower your hand.  All right.  So we are -- I think we should read the original resolve clause and the two new resolve clauses that are being proposed as the amendments, just to make sure everybody is clear on what you're voting on.  Could we read the original first and then the new ones. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I'm comfortable reading the original one, but I'm not sure if they wanted ACB and all stakeholders to participate -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I think that's what we wanted, yes. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  The original is,   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.  The amendment, now, therefore, be it resolved that the American Council of the Blind will have the Executive Director write a letter with ACB board approval to ACVREP expressing our profound objection and disappointment that ACVREP is moving forward with this certification and training without having offered a formal invitation for ACB and all stakeholders to participate in their stakeholder listening process and be it further resolved that this organization calls upon the staff and board of ACVREP to formally act in a meaningful and engaging dialogue with ACB and all stakeholders in any further development of the new OT training and certification. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  So the last two resolves that you heard, if you vote in favor, that's what you'll be adding to the resolution.  If you vote against, they will not be added. 
	So all that being said, all of those in favor of the amendment to the resolve clauses for amendment 2023-16, please raise your hand.  Voting in favor. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Let's lower all hands, please.  Let me know when they are down. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Hang on.  It's not letting me lower all hands again.  This is being -- there we go.  Very touchy tonight. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes.  Sorry.  It's getting tired of us.  [Laughter].  We have a hand that popped back up. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Don't touch your devices.  We will get them lowered.  Are we all down now?  
	>> NANCY BECKER:  No.  Are you getting that, Sheila?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We have to get it manually.  There we go. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Very good. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  All those wishing to vote against the amendment to resolution 2023-16, please raise your hand. 
May we have the count, please. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Those voting against, 117, those against, 80, and 236 participating in Zoom. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  117 to 80 in favor of the amendments.  Does anyone who voted in the minority wish to have a record vote on the amendment?  
	>> NANCY BECKER:  We probably need to make sure all hands are down first. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  They go down so much quicker in the ballroom. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  I have a couple of hands up. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Let's put them down and then I will ask then.  I apologize. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Sheila will put everybody's hands down. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  We will put them down. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  All hands are lowered. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Is there anyone who voted in the minority that would like to have a record vote?  Please raise your hand.  This will be a record vote on the amendment. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  We are settled. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  There are 38 individuals who are requesting a record vote. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay, folks.  Here is where we are, because we need to figure out when we're going to do that record vote so we can -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  The record vote will be on the 5th. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  But then when are we going to debate the resolution?  Then we have to vote on the amended resolution.  If the amendment passes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If the amendment passes, it replaces the resolve clause.  So then there's nothing else there. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, but -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If the amendment fails, then if you -- then let's see, then -- because if the amendment -- let's get help from the parliamentarian.  Because I want to make sure before everybody starts jumping in on this.  We need to take the record vote on this amendment.  If the amendment passes, it becomes the resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  It becomes a part of the resolution.  Go ahead, Denise. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  It becomes what has been presented as the resolution because you have not amended any of the whereases yet.  [Overlapping speakers.]  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  On the actual resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  That's what I'm saying. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  I'm trying to understand. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I understood -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So then the first vote -- yeah, so we have record votes, then, to answer Ray's question about when it could be -- we have record votes currently available on Monday, Tuesday, and we hadn't planned one for Wednesday, but there could be, and there is on Thursday.  So we would probably do the record vote for this on Monday, July 3rd. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  The time during the convention to then come back and debate the actual resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Standing rules say that if we vote on an amendment that -- and if the amendment passes -- we still need to vote on the resolution, you're correct.  Yeah, that was -- we need to figure this out.  We need to figure this out, guys. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  If there's record votes on multiple days, I think we need to do this and the resolution -- or the -- I would say we need to have the amendment as early as possible. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Monday. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  So we can find time to come back and have to debate the resolution, whether amended or not.  And then -- 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Am I hearing that on the first ballot that is done, this would be a part of the first ballot and potentially two pieces to that ballot?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, that's what I'm saying.  But what I'm trying to figure out is if there's any way -- we may -- what I think we may have to do is have some offline discussion and provide for the membership exactly how this will go, because in theory, that's what we would do is we would have any elections that are contested would happen the first opportunity for that is on the 1st.  So if there were none -- I'm sorry, not the 1st, the 3rd. 
	Excuse me.  I have problems with July starting on Saturday.  So basically if we -- if on the 3rd is the first scheduled election -- I mean record vote that we have, and it is for the purpose of any -- the first contested office and it could include this as well.  What I'm trying to figure out, though, is the logistics of having debate on this because -- so I believe what we're going to have to do is determine logistically what we can do.  The question box is going wild.  If you want to talk, you're going to have to put your hands up. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  We have eight people with their hand raised. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So my concern, I think we're going to need to sort this offline and advise everyone regarding the official -- how we can make this work.  The logistical problem that we have is to do a record vote, we have to have enough time for people to do their individual vote, and then we have to be able to schedule the -- we have to schedule the record vote, and we have to have the roll call following it.  So convention has to be in session for us to have a roll call vote and so we typically have planned that there could be a -- a record vote potentially each of the days that we're in convention session.  So the first session being Saturday, we can't have had a -- we can't start there with a roll call because we couldn't have the ability to set that up ahead.  So the first day that that's possible really is Monday.  So we're going to have to sit down and figure out the logistics. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yeah, we're going to have to figure out.  I don't think we really planned for this, but -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Well, you never plan for it. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  One of our core values is flexibility, guys.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Problems with the way that we are working, so we're going to see it in action.  That's all I can say. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  But regardless of that, we are -- this concludes us for the night.  At this point we -- for -- we have to work on the resolutions for the night. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I'd like to take a couple of hands because I see a couple of people who might be helpful. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I'm going to turn it back to you, Deb. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I don't want to belabor this because we need to work offline, but it looks like John McCann has his hand up and Paul Edwards.  I'd like to make both of those. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Go ahead, John.  All right, John, you can unmute.  And Paul Edwards.  Yeah. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I'm unmuted if you want me to go ahead. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Go ahead, Paul. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  We are in an interesting place, to put it mildly.  In the first place I would draw people's attention to our rules of order which essentially say that anything that goes forward from this meeting can't be debated.  So the first thing that we're going to have to do, if we're going to change that, is to amend our rules of order, which we can certainly do.  But I think we need to recognize that that's the case. 
	I also believe that since the amendment failed, there is, I believe, an obligation to allow for appropriate debate on the motion itself, and I would suggest that what our rules say is that debate ought to happen tonight. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The amendment passed, 117 in favor, 80 opposed. 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  Then I yield my last comment. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If it failed that would be -- 
	>> PAUL EDWARDS:  You wouldn't allow that. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  But since it passed. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  I'm currently unmuted. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Go ahead. 
	>> JOHN McCANN:  With the best of intentions, this has turned into a cluster, but here's the situation.  Here's the deal, as Biden would say.  Paul makes a good point.  You have to allow time for the amendment.  You have to deal with the amendment and I don't think we can have discussion in the amendment on the hybrid portion of the convention it is but then you have to allow time for whatever the resolution looks like in the face of the amendment versus nonamendment determination.  I was initially thinking in very rigid terms about what we're limited to, the 5th and the 6th.  We can -- [Overlapping speakers.] We can go to the 3rd, so I think we can do this.  I'd like starkly the need to even more -- we need more fine-tuning on the standing rules, to be sure.  I don't think I can overstate that. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I'll Paul on Patti and Matt and I'm not going to take too many unless we determine there's an action we can take here.  Patti?  
	>> PATTI COX:  Okay.  I have a question now that Paul made his statement.  Am I correct that we cannot debate it after tonight per our standing rules?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, would that be -- would that be the case?  I hadn't planned on anything after tonight.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  On the amendment, Patti, I think the amendment is done, if we go to the record vote now and -- [Overlapping speakers.] 
	>> PATTI COX:  Hold on, guys.  Wait a minute.  The reason I'm asking is we never debated the resolution.  We debated the amendment.  So I'm wondering if what Paul said, are we going to need to amend the standing rules so that we can, after tonight, and we have a record vote, then debate the resolution?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Pat Sheehan, since you weren't -- were involved in the standing rules, can you help us a little bit?  And also, our parliamentarian, I think -- because I really need to figure out, and if there's something we need to do tonight, I want to do it.  I want to get it right.  But I don't want to belabor all this if there's something we can't get done. 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:   [Indiscernible]?  Dan, go right ahead. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Dan, help us out here. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Wonderful, great conversation, ACB's democracy at its best, and I know it's difficult.  To me, we're perfectly fine.  We have in place four record vote slots that will take place on, you know, on Monday, roll call votes on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.  So I think we proceed down the path with this resolution just like we -- in its somewhat normal order.  So there's no more debate on the -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  On the amendment. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  So let me get through my talk.  There's no more debate on the amendment, so it will be a record vote on Monday.  The individual vote will be on Sunday.  The record vote will be on Monday.  What you all as the body have to decide, and what I would recommend, you now have to make time for debate, then, on the original resolution. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Or amended resolution, if the amendment passes. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  No matter what the approved resolution is must now be debated. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes.  
	>> DAN SPOONE:  So this is where I think the convention group, the folks who are handling general session have to work on it.  I think there are some ways we could do it.  We may have to start a little earlier to allow debate time or we may have to go a little bit later.  But we have to have, then, through our normal standing rules, the time to debate the actual resolution. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Right. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Once we have that debate, we'll ask for -- we'll ask for a voice vote up and down, we can do that just like we would normally do.  It will be -- you know, everybody's going to have to -- I think it's going to get a little more complicated, and this is what you all will have to decide, is do you want everybody to vote virtually when they do the voice vote or a combination of in the room and on Zoom.  You'll have to figure that out.  But do the voice vote and does it require a report vote with 25 votes.  If it requires a record vote, whether it goes up or down, that would go on the record vote for the next day.  You would have that.  And then -- and then you're done.  So I think that's -- I think that's it. 
	There's plenty of slots.  But what you're going to have to allow time for -- and I would start on Monday, because you don't know how squirrelly this will get.  There could be another amendment.  I would definitely start on Monday with the first record vote, and then you have to plan for time, I believe -- I would do it somehow at the end of Monday or in there too, to have debate.  Because then you have to have another day for elections.  You'll have to figure that out. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Doug has withdrawn his amendment.  Was his amendment -- was that technically on the floor since we had to go to Koni's amendment?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  If he is offering to withdraw, technically it was, but I -- I ruled that out of order because we want to take Koni's first but if he wants to withdraw, that's fine. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We still have to debate the original -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The original or amended resolution, the amended first and then -- 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  We have to figure out a 20-minute debate period and even if it goes to a record vote, the record vote will be on Wednesday and Thursday.  We already have a slot for that.  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I'm not worried about the record vote.  I'm worried about the whole process of getting the roll call and the debate time in. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Now do you plan during general session 20 minutes of debate.  Where do you fit that into the general session. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Go ahead, Jeff. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Matt.  Yes, Matt. 
	>> MATT SELM:  Just an inquiry, if we are -- if amendments to resolutions such as here are even able to be subject to a record vote. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Anything that can be voted on can be record voted.  Per the constitution.  Article 3, section C, I believe.  Don will correct me. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  Madam Chair. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, Jeff. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  So I agree with Dan, but I agree with Paul.  We need to choose the rules.  We can do it simply tonight, I think.  By simply, I'll make a motion if you want.  I move to suspend the rules to allow, after the record vote on the amendment, to allow debate on the main resolution. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  There's a motion on the floor to suspend the rules to allow debate after the -- on the floor after the record vote for the amendment.  So then we will be debating -- 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I'll second that. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  And Gabe will second that.  Thank you.
	>> DAN SPOONE:  I don't know what that means.  Could you clarify that, Jeff?  
	>> JEFF THOM:  The rules tonight, as Paul said, state that the record vote on the amended resolution, there is no more debate, period.  So there's no -- specifically in the rules, you can't have -- 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Yes, that was put in last year because we couldn't [Overlapping speakers].  I completely understand that. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  He's saying we need to fix that so we can go ahead and debate the actual amended resolution. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  If the body wishes to do that.  If they vote not to amend the rules -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, the whole thing happens if we take the record vote -- well, if we don't amend the rules, then we're in trouble. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  No, we're not in trouble.  We just can't debate after the -- [Overlapping speakers.]  Yes. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, yes, of course. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  This is just a motion to suspend that rule so after that first record vote is taken we can come back to debate the resolution as it will look after -- 
	>> JEFF THOM:  Yes.  You guys can figure out the whole logistics of doing this.  As long as we amend this rule -- suspend the rule, I should say. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Suspend the rule. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  If you don't suspend, you just don't debate. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Are you saying permanently or temporarily for now?  
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  I think it's just in regards to this resolution. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  It's in regard to this resolution. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  It's the only one we have left. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Can't have anything else.  Right.  Then I believe we need to open 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  We need a second. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  We have it.  That was Gabe. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  I believe a motion to suspend the rules is not debatable, but I'm willing to be corrected. 
	>> It requires a two-thirds to pass. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Is it debatable, for the parliamentarian?  
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Denise is in here, but I'm not seeing her. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  I believe we had this question the other night.  It's not debatable. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  I think so too. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Then we need to -- we can take questions.  So we will take -- if there's a question -- 
	>> SHEILA YOUNG:  Melanie.  Hang on.  There we go.  Melanie, you may unmute. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay, an interesting comment from Michael Byington, he had spoken before the amendment was introduced so we only have 16 minutes left of the original debate. 
	>> DENISE COLLEY:  That's true. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Thanks, Michael.  On my brain, you tell you guys -- [Laughter] Do we have -- 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  Melanie is unmuted. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Okay.  I need a clarification, please.  Are you saying that the standing rules say that any item that is debated at the -- at one of these meetings cannot be debated after a record vote on it?  
	>> JEFF THOM:  That's correct.  And we did that, Melanie, because we were worried we'd have so many potential votes. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Yeah, I get the reason.  My difficulty here is that although we have debated the amendment, we have not debated the resolution. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That's right.  We need to suspend the rules. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  That's my motion. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Why do we have to suspend the rules if the rule is an item can't be redebated?  We haven't had a debate. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah, yeah. 
	>> JEFF THOM:  There's no debate, period, after a record vote on the amendment of a resolution, there is no debate subsequent to that. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  I don't know on the resolution?  
	>> JEFF THOM:  That's correct.  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That's why we're needing to do that.  This is very strong. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  We were very limited in the votes that were allowed. 
	>> MELANIE BRUNSON:  Okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Chris Gray has a point of order. 
	>> CHRIS GRAY:  I'm unmuted from here.  Good.  So I am not necessarily prepared to totally push this point tonight, but suspending the rules, I have been told by two parliamentarians, is simply not allowable.  Now, maybe because this is about a standing rule and maybe because it's about an amendment, it's okay.  And it certainly is not going to do any harm to anybody for this to happen.  But typically, I totally oppose suspending the rules for any reason.  They're adopted.  They are the rules. 
	Now, as I said, I'm not necessarily going to push this tonight, but we need to research it and not follow this situation.  It seems to me that given that this is an amendment that we're probably okay to suspend and move forward because moving forward takes precedence in this case.  But overall, not suspending a rule. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah, we're being very specific that we'd be suspending it because of this specific resolution, so it would be item-specific and I agree that that's probably the only way we could do it.  There's Denise. 
	>> DENISE IRMINGER:  I'm sorry.  I had to have a break.  Speaking about suspending the rules, you may suspend rules, and it takes a two-thirds vote.  It's suspending your bylaws that you do not do. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yeah. 
	>> CHRIS GRAY:  I'll accept that clarification.  Thank you. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  That helps.  Thank you so much.  
	>> CHRIS GRAY:  Yes, it does.  It helps me a lot. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  If Chris feels better, I feel better.  Where are we, taking care of the new questions?  Dan Newt asks if someone would read the actual rule that is under discussion to be suspended.  Do we know what rule it is?  
	>> I don't know.  
	>> I don't know either. 
	>> NANCY BECKER:  The convention standing rules. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Madam President, the only thing I see, the last rule, 8b or 9b.  Let me make sure I -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Okay.  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  It's 7b.  I'm sorry.  So it says 
-- let me read both parts because I think it will give good context. 
	So 7a says -- and I'm doing it listening to JAWS and repeating it back because I don't have my Braille device hooked up. 
	Once a voice vote has been taken on a resolution or an amendment thereto in accordance with Section C, Article 3 of the American Council of the Blind and the constitution and the chair has announced the results of that vote, the chair shall ask whether anyone in the minority objects to that vote, except that if less than 25 members voted in the minority, the chair may determine that a record vote is required. 
	At least 25 -- if at least 25 voting in the minority is in the raised hand feature of the Zoom of internet meeting client program object to the result, then a record vote on the resolution shall be required. 
	After debate has ceased on a resolution and a record vote is required, subsequent -- let me reread that, because I want to get the wording correct.  If after debate, after debate has ceased on a resolution and it is subsequently determined that the record vote is required, no further amendments may be proposed.  That speaks to resolutions.  There's nothing about the amendments to resolutions.  [Overlapping speakers].  so long -- I don't think we need to suspend the rules.  I think we can take the record vote and however that turns out, I think we can go back to debating the amended motion or the amended resolution, I'm sorry. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  You can't debate what we did tonight. 
That's done. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  The reason this is put in here, if a resolution goes to a record vote, what we didn't want, is continuing debate.  We basically wanted to make it clear, once it goes to a record vote -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  So there's no additional debate on Koni's amendment, because that amendment has been determined to the point of the record vote. 
	The outcome of the record vote hasn't, of course.  But the determination of the voice vote has. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  So Dan is correct, we would need to take the record vote on the amendment, see how that goes, and make time for debate on the resolution, however it turns out. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I think we would have to make time for the debate regardless of how the amendment turns out, wouldn't we?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Yes. 
	>> GABE GRIFFITH:  The original or the amended. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, yes, either way.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> There goes my beautiful agenda. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Flexibility.  [Overlapping speakers].  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  The convention will be going 24 hours a day.  By the way, you lost your breaks several days ago.  Denise will tell you, Denise Colley has told you our state has not had breaks at conventions for years.  So we do not get a break.  All right.  So we need to -- we need to -- 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Madam Chair, may I suggest that maybe you convene a special meeting of the voting task force to help -- 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Figure this out. 
	>> DAN SPOONE:  Put an approach in place?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Yes, I think so.  Yes.  Do we have something we need to vote on or not?  No.  That's right.  You withdrew your motion.  Thank God. 
	[Laughter.]  
	Thank you all.  I appreciate it.  All right.  So I believe that we have no further business.  So I'm going to -- 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Court is in recess, right?  
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  I haven't lost the words.  What I was thinking about is there anything that I really need to -- the inventory, mental -- I think we're good.  We are going to go into recess and we will be, of course, convening in Schaumburg and we will be providing more information about all of the details of this, but you can expect a record vote on -- you will be voting on Sunday and you probably were going to be anyway if we had any contested elections, so that's pretty much been assumed on the second.  If something is contested.  So you will be voting on those and this.  Yes?  
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  All right.  Then we are in recess, and thank you all very much for a really interesting and productive evening. 
	>> RAY CAMPBELL:  Okay.  Thank you, Deb. 
	>> DEB COOK LEWIS:  Mm-hmm.  
	[ Human realtime captioning by HRI CART.  ]