(Please see boldface copy below)

B-10 Floor Discussion/Vote Discrimination Policy Amendment

[Please refer to a separately emailed document comparing the language that was ultimately adopted in B-10 with the changes originally proposed in B-8 as it showed in the early June mailing that delegates received in their Preliminary Report of the 2005-2006 NEA Resolutions Committee.]

In the original documents received by NEA Delegates through the mail early in June, there were no suggested changes to the B-10 Discrimination Resolution. There were proposed changes to the B-8 Resolution, Diversity, suggesting that all diverse groups previously listed by NEA deserved legal rights including civil unions and/or marriage. The Resolutions Committee prepared a later report after their June 29th meeting deleting the language endorsing same sex marriage in the B-8 Diversity Resolution and inserting language into the B-10 Discrimination Resolution. Following is a thorough discussion of what happened on the floor of the RA prior to the overwhelming adoption of the B-10 Discrimination Resolution with its ’06 amendment:

When the RA Today, a paper printed for the duration of the Annual Meeting, came out for the last day of the RA, it was learned that Resolution B-10 was pulled by two parties, Ollie Underwood (AL State President) asked for opportunity to discuss B-10 on the floor of the RA and Rick Trainor (MI) asked for an amendment to add the words, “educational decisions” to the recommended B-10 amendment. Sissy Jochmann, Chair of the Conservative Educators Caucus (CEC) found the AL State Pres and talked with him after having learned from an AL Delegate that AL was opposed to the B-10 Amendment. Sissy offered the help of the CEC. Help was declined by Ollie Underwood.

Resolutions were done in alphabetical order starting with I (where the RA left off last year). During the normal order of discussion, the motion to suspend the rules and move Resolution B-10 to be next on the agenda was made. The vote to suspend the rules did not pass. It was suspected that many who were headed to caucus meetings didn’t want to miss B-10.

When the time to handle Resolution B-10 arrived, the first person Reg Weaver called on for B-10 was not Ollie Underwood as was listed in the RA Today. This is the first time Reg broke with the printed agenda regarding who was first called on. The first person called on was Rick Trainer (MI) who withdrew his amendment. The probable reason for this was to avoid discussion on B-10 because once an amendment is submitted, discussion would have been opened on B-10. Because the amendment was withdrawn, his motion did not therefore open the discussion.

Then Reg called on Ollie Underwood. Mr. Underwood moved that B-10 be referred back to the Resolutions Committee. No discussion on the content could be opened by this motion. His reasons for the referral were, “The AL State Caucus wants to go on record as having referred this back to the Resolutions Committee.” Mr. Underwood was the only person who spoke in favor of referring the B-10 amendment. From 3-5 people spoke against referring the B-10 amendment back to the Resolutions Committee.

It was explained by Brent McKim, Chair of the Resolutions Committee, that if this motion to refer B-10 back to the committee passes, the current language in B-10 will remain as is from the previous ‘04-’05 Resolutions Committee Recommendations. No proposed changes from the ’05-’06 committee would be adopted. The motion to refer B-10 to the Resolutions Committee was resoundingly defeated. AL State Delegates and CEC Delegates voted for the motion to refer.

The motion was then on the floor to automatically adopt the B-10 with its amendment based on the original motion to adopt the entire recommendations of the Resolutions Committee. At this point, Reg Weaver said, “I have slips here of people wishing to speak. I think we have discussed this enough in State Caucus meetings and the body might not want to discuss this further. Let the body decide whether or not to close debate. All those in favor of closing debate, say “Aye.” All those opposed say, “Nay.” The vote passed to close debate.

Clarification was offered for the next motion on the floor by Brent McKim. “You are now voting to adopt B-10 Discrimination Resolution with its ’06 amendment.” It was made clear that should the up-coming vote be voted, “no” the entire B-10 Resolution on Discrimination would be stricken from NEA Resolutions. This was a clarification never offered on any other individual resolutions vote..

When the vote was taken, many AL Delegates and the CEC voted no. The rest of the 9,000 delegates voted to adopt B-10 with its amendment, an overwhelming majority.

Later in the proceedings, a person asked Reg Weaver why they were denied the opportunities to speak on B-10. Reg answered, “A motion to refer B-10 back to committee was made and that that motion was defeated. I think that what AL wanted to accomplish has been accomplished. I told the body that I had slips for people wishing to speak for and against B-10, but the body voted to close debate.” This explanation from the NEA President raised suspicions of collaboration between AL State Caucus Leadership and national NEA Leadership.

NBI – 52 Floor Discussion/Vote (Dubbed by some Conservative NEA Members as the B-52 Bummer)

Author of the Business Item, Phil Rumore (NY)

Rational/Background
Words not only describe reality and behavior, they shape it. "Tolerance" implies "putting up with" (a disapproval of others) and is wrong when used in relation to how we should relate to others. We should teach acceptance and respect not tolerance of those who are different from us wherever appropriate.

Submitted by Majority vote at regularly called meeting of the NY state delegation in connection with the annual meeting.

Contact Person
Phil Rumore, New York

Mark Berntson (ND), representing his state, amended the item suggesting that the word, “acceptance” be changed to “sensitivity.” The rationale for this modification was based on the definitions of “acceptance” vs “sensitivity.” Mark’s speech pointed out that the word, “sensitivity” might more clearly represent the goals of this business item because the word, “acceptance” has a coercive implication for those who might have serious disagreement with some ideologies held by diverse populations. Sensitivity, on the other hand, should be extended to anyone, no matter what their position of belief.

Even though there were several other delegates in line to both support and oppose Mark’s amendment, Reg Weaver ask the body if they were in agreement to close debate on the amendment which stifled further debate. The delegates moved to close debate… prematurely. Sissy Jochmann was positioned at the mic ready to speak in support of the Bernston amendment but was denied the opportunity.

After a discussion of approximately ten minutes, Marks’s modification was ultimately defeated by a fair margin.

NBI 52 was then adopted by a wide margin. As Sissy Jochmann was returning to her seat, head down feeling frustrated for not having the opportunity to speak, she turned the corner, raised her head and came within 5 feet of Bob Chase, the NEA past President who was very instrumental in opening the door that enabled the GLBT NEA members to infiltrate the NEA leadership positions. The words that came out of his mouth were quite telling but not at all surprising. She heard him say, "Great! Just moved from tolerance to acceptance!"

NBI 52 was adopted by a wide margin.

Resolution I-24 Floor Discussion/Vote (Sexual Assault)

Resolution I-24 as it read in the adopted ’04 – ’05 Resolutions Committee Recommendations:

The National Education Association believes that all members of society should be protected from becoming victims of sexual assault. The Association also believes that it is a violation of the victims’ right to privacy to release the names of the victims or to have their past sexual history admitted as evidence in assault cases. The Association supports fair and equitable treatment by health, hospital, and law enforcement agencies for sexual assault victims. The Association further believes that access to necessary services/programs must be made available to victims and their families. These services must be funded by appropriate government agencies.

The Association believes that states should develop a systematic process for gathering evidence when such assaults occur and supports the use of DNA testing as a means to identify perpetrators of sexual assault. The Association also believes in the importance of counseling and rehabilitation for the assailant, and the protection of privacy and due process rights for both the victim and the alleged assailant. (1981, 2005)

Diane Lenning was encouraged by her local resolutions committee member to pull the I-24 Resolution and propose her new amendment from the floor of the Representative Assembly (RA). There was apparently insufficient time to discuss the I-24 Lenning amendment in the most recent Resolutions Committee Meeting that occurred right after the Open Resolutions Hearings on June 30. After her proposal to discuss the I-24 amendment was properly submitted, Diane’s local president went to bat to see how Diane’s amendment was received by the various state caucuses. Her amendment read as follows:

I-24 Sexual Assault. Amend by addition on page 76 line 12 (end of current I-24 language). “To protect the rights of all students, the Association believes that illegal sexual contact between adults and minors is unacceptable.”

The majority of state caucuses were in favor of the amendment if the word “illegal” were to be removed. Based on the feed back received, Diane modified her own amendment to read, “To protect the rights of all students, the Association believe sexual contact between education professionals and minor students is unacceptable.” Although discussion of her amendment was repressed in the CA State Caucus meeting, she moved to adopt her modified amendment on the floor of the RA. Her modified amendment showed on the big screens for clarification.

Diane gave a speech giving rationale for the wording of the modifications she wanted in her amendment. She also added in her comments that this amendment had gone before the Resolutions Committee and urged that it go before the RA for a vote.

None of the speakers who had requested were given opportunity to speak except the person who seconded Diane’s motion. He pointed out that basic democratic freedoms are being violated when the right to speak on these motions is denied.

Brent McKim, Chair of the NEA Resolutions Committee said, “Contrary to what Mrs. Lenning has said, this amendment has not gone before the resolutions committee.” He essentially called Mrs. Lenning a liar before the R.A. Diane had in fact submitted this amendment two years in a row and the language in her proposal was suggested by various resolutions committee members over the past two years of attempts to pass this amendment.

None-the-less, Mr. McKim made a subsequent motion to refer Resolution I-24 back to the Resolutions Committee. The delegate who makes an original motion usually gets to speak on whether or not a subsequent motion is friendly or unfriendly. If the original maker of the motion calls the subsequent motion friendly, then the subsequent motion stands with the original motion and they are voted on together. If not friendly, it must be voted on separately. Diane was not given the opportunity to declare whether or not the motion to refer I-24 Amendment to committee was friendly or unfriendly.

A CEC Member, Carol Howell (CA), entered a slip to speak against the motion to refer I-24 to committee. Right after it was submitted, Reg Weaver said, “I have no slips requesting to speak to the motion so let’s go to the vote.” No further discussion was allowed. Nor was Mrs. Lenning allowed the opportunity to correct her accuser with the documented proof that her amendment had indeed been submitted to the Resolutions Committee, though she followed proper procedure requesting permission to speak.

Throughout the Representative Assembly, signs were seen at every state telling members of their state leaders’ wish to refer I-24 back to the Resolutions Committee. The vote passed overwhelmingly, once again negating all of the efforts of Diane Lenning and others to insert language defending school children against sexual misconduct of education professionals.

Diane’s local president was very upset that the leadership had directed the vote of the R.A. Others were accustomed to this seeming manipulation of the R.A. Vote and were not surprised