Midyear Meeting, February, 2001 (San Diego)

To: NABE Board of Directors and Membership

From: Tom Edmonds

Re: Report of Actions Taken at February 19, 2001 Meeting of ABA House of Delegates

Date: March 6, 2001

1. A.P. Carlton of North Carolina was introduced to the House as the President-Elect Nominee. He prevailed in the Nominating Committee vote over Jack Dunbar of Mississippi and Darrell Jordan of Texas, and he will become the President-Elect at the annual meeting this summer. He is a past chair of the House.
2. In one of the few actions of the House reported in the popular press, a resolution proposed by a number of ABA entities, including the Criminal Justice Section and the YLD, was approved by a divided vote putting the ABA on record as opposing, in principle, Azero tolerance@ policies that have a discriminatory effect or mandate either expulsion from school or referral of students to juvenile or criminal court, without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense or the student=s history. The press portrayed this action as encouraging softness toward those who bring drugs or weapons to school, but the resolution made it clear that this was not the intent. Rather, it was meant to address some of the relatively bizarre cases in which students have been expelled or referred to the judicial system for very minor infractions not involving any danger to others under so-called zero tolerance policies applied in a draconian manner. Believing that mandatory minimum sanctions of a harsh nature like this are usually a bad idea, depriving decision makers of discretion to consider all the facts and circumstances, I voted in favor of the resolution.
3. A resolution seeking establishment of an ABA Commission to study the problems identified in the aftermath of the recent presidential election with the casting and counting of votes and make appropriate recommendations to correct them was amended to delete the suggested Commission and encourage existing ABA entities and state, local and territorial bar associations to undertake these efforts. As amended, the resolution was approved. I think this is happening anyway in many states and felt the resolution would do no harm, so I voted for it.
4. The House narrowly approved (57% to 43%) a resolution supporting accession by the United States to the Rome Statute, which would create an International Criminal Court in which persons from any signatory country could be tried for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity in situations where the person=s own country was unwilling or unable to undertake an investigation and prosecution of the alleged offenses. Opponents, principally from the military and the Law Student Division, argued that the statute is flawed and requires further negotiations over the circumstances in which the new court would have jurisdiction to try U.S. citizens. Proponents, including the current President and several past Presidents of the ABA, contended that it was vital for the United States to support creation of such a court, consistent with past ABA policy positions, and that this country could clearly avoid having one of its citizens tried by the new court if it asserted its willingness to investigate and prosecute the matter. I voted with the majority to support the resolution.
5. Several resolutions recommended by the Coordinating Committee on Immigration Law were overwhelmingly approved by the House. They were designed to require better and fairer treatment of unaccompanied children who are involved in the immigration process; oppose the involuntary transfer of detained immigrants and asylum seekers to facilities that impede an existing attorney-client relationship; and advocate procedural reforms in the system which now allows certain actions to be taken on the basis of secret evidence not disclosed to the subject of an immigration proceeding. I voted for all of these resolutions.
6. An individual ABA member sought to have the House adopt a resolution that would have essentially been a pro life statement which he intended to direct to the abortion issue. As drafted, however, it would have been problematic with respect to such matters as withdrawing artificial life support from a person who is incapable of living otherwise. Thus, the resolution was defeated by a vote of 11% to 89%; I voted against the resolution.
7. In light of recent actions by the Inspector General of LSC, several bar associations, along with the Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, presented a resolution urging that legal aid funding sources not, in auditing recipients of funds, have access to client records when such access would be in violation of the attorney-client privilege. The resolution was approved almost unanimously; I voted in favor of it.