Still on Day 1

Sorry it is taking so long for me to get these up here. The devil is in the writing and then finding internet access to allow me to post. Also, I meant to say that all my comments on the RCs are my thoughts, thoughts gleaned from others, or thoughts that I got wrong. There have been times in my life that I have served as a fountain of misinformation. I hope all you readers are aware that if that indeed is the case I would welcome any and all corrections...ahHA, requesting constructive feedback... And lastly, before this blog entry really begins, I apologize for editorial errors, I am trying to get this up quickly and will read everything over and correct later, hopefully.

Day 1 : Part 3 - It starts . . .

I never knew they were so productive in the House of Delegates. As the HoD convened tonight, APTA President, Dr. R. Scott Ward described the electricity he experienced at his first house in 1983…yes, the year I was born. I felt that electricity tonight. The music was blaring, people were smiling and there was a general hubbub around every delegation as I entered the conference room. They quickly passed the first 4 (of about 40) motions, 3 honorary members and one allowing student status to be given for PTs in a residency or fellowship. Swimming along, I thought…

Then we hit the BoD’s motions. I think the general idea of these is to help “simplify” the process of bringing motions forward, and move toward a year round governance. Well, after much hemming and hawing over where the power was given to create a deadline was done over RC 5, they tabled it for first business Tuesday. RC 6 – RC 6 is a story in itself.

I stopped writing this at 1am Tuesday morning and have now opened it up again at 10:30 Tuesday night. It has been a very busy day.

Ok, so RC 6 – This RC was proposed a change in the timing of election of delegates to the delegation. Again, this is me thinking, which is very dangerous….but it was to encourage complete delegations that could deliberate over a greater time period throughout the year, allowing for efficient time for business to be accomplished. However, states that already have elections in place in the fall of each year were upset as adopting this would throw a wrench, so to speak, in the process they have set up which works well for them… and it does work well for them. The states disagreeing with this where those who regularly have well ordered and thought out motions before the house (or so I hear.) Then the parliamentarian made the point that adopting this would not force each state to change their process, it was just a recommendation. Thus, after some discussion, it was adopted.

Then RC 7 was brought forth. This motion proposed a change in the date when members in each state would be counted and delegate seats apportioned. As the House hashed through this, some implications of RC 6 started to appear, which those who had voted to pass had not thought of yet. The chief delegate of MA pointed out that now, if a state did not change their voting schedule in accordance with the “optional” guidelines set forth in RC 6, a delegation could be set but when apportioned, they would have to either get a new delegate if a seat were added, or “lop one off” if membership dropped and a seat had to be taken away. This caused a great deal of confusion on the floor. Questions were asked, frustrations were stated, points for and against were made, and finally it was moved that RC 6 be reconsidered. Upon going back to RC 6, the Board of Directors thought it would be best that RCs 6 and 7 be considered before the house reconvened Tuesday morning.

That was enough to squelch some of the emergent emotions that were becoming more and more prominent throughout each state’s delegation as well as the Board. However, RC 8 promised to play its best confusion act and throw a fog over the first day of the House. It brought forth a set of detailed guidelines that a motion would have to meet before it could be considered by the reference committee. Now, while I did say these guidelines were detailed, I should add they were meticulous enough to leave sufficient room for any what-if question that might cross a delegate’s mind. And up went the question-mark signs! Fortunately, and this is probably the only context in which this would be fortunate… RCs 5-7 had taken so long there was little time left for RC 8 and the House Day 1 was complete. The Board stuck around to discuss their ideas with the, er, stimulating RCs, and we caucused. I do love the word caucus. But things were not done yet…we got to go eat “fun size” portions of stale food in the Mexican category and stiff spinach stuffed mushrooms. Then we grabbed a bite to eat across the street along with about every other delegation staying at the Omni.

At this point, I really should mention that I was amped after the house recessed. Yes, with all the processing, questioning, and discussing in as calm a manner as ever, it was like the feeling you get right before a huge summer thunderstorm. The anticipation for what might come next, and who would get struck by lightening was very exciting.

End Day 1.


Coming up:

Day 2 – House of Delegates – Can they do it?