DELEGATE SCANLAN: I believe if a
committee were meeting, pursuant to call
of its chairman pursuing the business on a
Saturday, the man would be entitled to his
$25.00 for attendance.
DELEGATE CHABOT: If he were not
at that meeting presumably he would have
the $15.00 penalty, but other members of
the Convention who were not in that com-
mittee would have neither the $25.00 nor
the $15.00 penalty?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That inequity
could arise. Again, I think by conversation
between members of the committee and the
chairman who calls the Sunday afternoon
meeting the inequities could be eliminated.
DELEGATE CHABOT: One more ques-
tion, if I may. Would absences because of
religious obligations be expected to be re-
garded as excused absences?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes. As a
matter of fact, I think this was brought up
earlier in some of the informal discussions
before the committee and the view was
unanimous that absence because of a re-
ligious obligation certainly would be—using,
again, this phrase, in an awkward but lib-
eral sense—a factor beyond the delegate's
control.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate White?
DELEGATE WHITE: I would like to
ask the chairman an additional question.
Will the delegate who is absent because of
illness be required to submit a doctor's
certificate or will the President rely on our
integrity?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Again I would
think the administrative procedures under
which this rule would be administered would
repose with the President. Certainly I
would think that if the delegate says he is
ill, he is ill, and I am sure that that is the
standard procedure the President will
follow.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Stern?
DELEGATE STERN: Mr. Chairman, is
the money lost? I can perceive we could
possibly go to the extended thirty days and
if you have had an excused or unexcused
absence, for instance, if your $25.00 expense
money was taken from you in an excused
absence in the first hundred days of the
meeting and we extended after that and we
attended the 101st and thereafter, could
you get the $25.00? The same thing would
go for the pay. You are limited by statute
to the amount of the pay. Could you pick |
up your pay for the short day after the
time had run out?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I do not think
the committee allowed for an evening out
process. If the man was absent with an ex-
cused absence, he does not lose $15.00 but
he loses $25.00 for that day. I do not think
he can make it up by the claim, well, he
worked harder in tHe last, the fourth month
of the Convention. Similarly, if he lost his
$15.00 for an unexcused absence, I do not
see how he could make it up. I think this
would be fairly rare.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure, Dele-
gate Scanlan, but I do not think that was
the intent of Delegate Stern's question, if I
understood him myself. I think he was ask-
ing whether if a delegate by reason of his
having missed time early in the session had
not reached his $4,500 limit, he could subse-
quently collect for attendance that did not
carry him over the $4,500, even though
such attendance for other delegates might
be non-compensatory.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I think the
answer to that would probably be yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that your ques-
tion, Delegate Stern?
DELEGATE STERN: Yes, it was.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: As the Chair-
man rephrased it, my answer to that would
be yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any
further questions to the Chairman? If not,
Delegate Scanlan, you may make your mo-
tion.
J '
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I move that
the Convention adopt as a new chapter 9
the regulation proposed in the Third Re-
port of the Committee on Rules, Credentials,
and Convention Budget and that the regu-
lation, when adopted, be made retroactive
until September 12,1967.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
DELEGATE CASE: Second.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a second. I
would like to ask a question. Is it the in-
tent of your last motion that the President,
on a retroactive basis, determine whether
prior absences should or should not be ex-
cused?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: It has come
to my attention, Mr. President, that the |
