Credentials Committee minority report

[J. J.]

At a convention, the credentials committee submits its list of delegates.  Several members request to make a minority report, which is granted.

The minority report includes different individual delegates in various delegations:  In District 3,  Abner is not on the list and Bey is.  In District 12, Jones is not on the list, but Covert is.  For District 23 (23C) and District 37 (37C) a completely different list of delegates, 23M and 37M, is offered.  The member reporting a minority report moves to substitute the minority report for the committee report. 

1.  Is the motion to substitute in order?

2.  If it is in order, who gets to vote on this substitution?  May Abner, Jones, and the list of 23C and 37C vote on this, even though the report, if adopted will replace them?

 

Edited August 25, 2023 at 02:42 PM by J. J.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:40 AM, J. J. said:

1.  Is the motion to substitute in order?

No.

"If seat(s) are contested, an amendment can be offered substantially in this form: “To amend by adding ‘provided that the name of George J. Morse be added to the roll of delegates as submitted, as a delegate from the state of Missouri.'” The name of the rival delegate can then be offered in a secondary amendment, for example, “to strike out ‘George J. Morse' and insert ‘Frank Norton.'” Whether or not a contest is reported, it is in order to move such amendments or even to move to substitute an entirely different set of delegates for any delegation in the reported list, but no such amendment is permitted to include more names than those of a single challenged delegate or delegation all of whom are challenged on the same grounds, together with any claimants involved." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24, emphasis added

A proposed amendment to the Credentials Committee report may include, at most, delegates from a single delegation. The proposed amendment includes changes to delegates from four separate delegations, and is not in order on that basis.

The proposed changes will require at least four separate amendments - one for the Abner/Bey challenge, one for the Jones/Covert challenge, and at least one amendment each for District 23 and District 37. It may require more, depending on whether all of the delegates from a particular delegation are challenged on the same grounds.

On 8/25/2023 at 9:40 AM, J. J. said:

2.  If it is in order, who gets to vote on this substitution?  May Abner, Jones, and the list of 23C and 37C vote on this, even though the report, if adopted will replace them?

The amendment is not in order. If and when proper amendments are made on this matter, the challenged delegates may not vote on the particular amendment relating to their case.

"On an amendment proposing changes in the list of delegates, none of the delegates involved in the case can vote. Those seated by the committee, though contested in a case not yet reached, can vote on all cases except their own." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24

Edited August 25, 2023 at 03:31 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 8/25/2023 at 11:29 AM, Josh Martin said:

No.

"If seat(s) are contested, an amendment can be offered substantially in this form: “To amend by adding ‘provided that the name of George J. Morse be added to the roll of delegates as submitted, as a delegate from the state of Missouri.'” The name of the rival delegate can then be offered in a secondary amendment, for example, “to strike out ‘George J. Morse' and insert ‘Frank Norton.'” Whether or not a contest is reported, it is in order to move such amendments or even to move to substitute an entirely different set of delegates for any delegation in the reported list, but no such amendment is permitted to include more names than those of a single challenged delegate or delegation all of whom are challenged on the same grounds, together with any claimants involved." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24, emphasis added

The proposed amendment includes changes to delegates from three separate delegations, and is not in order on that basis.

 

First, it is four delegations, Jones/Covert. 

Second, this is not an amendment, technically.  It is a substitute of a minority report.  If it would (or could) be adopted, the roll in the substitute would be fully amendable like the roll in the committee's report. 

I will agree, completely that, as an amendment, it is not proper to change the delegates in 4 delegations in one motion.

Would 51:70 not be applicable in the specific case on credentials committees?

[Josh Martin]

On 8/25/2023 at 10:46 AM, J. J. said:

First, it is four delegations, Jones/Covert. 

Yes, I went back and caught that, but apparently not quickly enough.

On 8/25/2023 at 10:46 AM, J. J. said:

Second, this is not an amendment, technically.  It is a substitute of a minority report.  If it would (or could) be adopted, the roll in the substitute would be fully amendable like the roll in the committee's report. 

Perhaps I am missing something, but last time I checked, a substitute is a form of amendment.

"There are three basic processes of amendment, the third of which is an indivisible combination of the first two. For each of these processes, some of the rules are different depending on whether it is applied with reference to a few words or to a whole paragraph or section; so that each process has two forms, as follows: ...

b. To substitute; that is, in effect, to strike out a paragraph, or the entire text of a resolution or main motion, and insert another in its place. (Note that substitute is a technical parliamentary term that is not applied to anything less than a complete paragraph of one or more sentences, so that this term is not applicable to Form 3(a).)" RONR (12th ed.) 12:8

"When the minority report is presented, it is for information, and it cannot be acted upon except by a motion to substitute it for the report of the committee. Whether the views of the minority are formally presented or not, however, any member can move that resolutions proposed by the committee be amended, or that they be postponed indefinitely, or that some other appropriate action be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 51:70

But supposing for the sake of argument you are correct that this is "not an amendment, technically," I would say in that instance that all delegates included on the original credentials committee report would be able to vote, since I don't see how this would be counted as an amendment for some parts of 59:24 but not others. The controlling rule would then be the more general last sentence of 59:24.

"On the question of adopting the Credentials Committee's report or on motions connected with its consideration, only those persons whose names are on the list of voting members reported by the committee (as this list stands after any amendment already approved by the convention) are entitled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24

On 8/25/2023 at 10:46 AM, J. J. said:

Would 51:70 not be applicable in the specific case on credentials committees?

It would seem to me that, as a practical matter, the first sentence of 51:70 is inapplicable with respect to the specific case of a credentials committee (unless the substitute differs only with respect to a particular delegate or delegation, all of whom are challenged on the same grounds).

The remainder of 51:70 remains applicable, subject to the limitations stated in 59:24.

Edited August 25, 2023 at 05:05 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

Apparently, at least with a regular report, you can substitute the entire report.

 

Assume that the building and grounds report included these recommendations:

1.  Plant roses in the garden.

2.  Paint the gazebo.

3.  Pain the front hall.

It would be possible for a minority report to be substituted that recommended:

1.  Plant forget-me-nots along the driveway.

2.  Re-point the east wall.

That could be done in one motion.  It is not a question of amending individual parts using 51:70.

In the case of a credentials committee, it is substituting the roll that the committee recommended (the majority) and replacing it with the roll a minority of the committee recommended.  In neither case would be adopting a roll and both would be subject to amendment.  If the minority credentials report  could be and was substituted, the substituted roll would become pending and fully amendable.

 

[Atul Kapur]

The specific rule in 59:24 on the scope of an amendment to a credentials committee report (as cited by Mr. Martin above) appears to supersede the general rule on minority reports being proposed as a substitution of the committee report in 51:70.

[J. J.]

On 8/25/2023 at 6:00 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The specific rule in 59:24 on the scope of an amendment to a credentials committee report (as cited by Mr. Martin above) appears to supersede the general rule on minority reports being proposed as a substitution of the committee report in 51:70.

Then would it be out of order to move to substitute the minority report? 

[Atul Kapur]

Yes. I agree with @Josh Martin that a motion to substitute the minority report for the credentials committee report, as in your OP, is not in order.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree on the grounds that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

And as a practical matter, if there are genuine challenges to the seating of particular delegates, and the intent is to deal with these disputes on their merit, it is going to be more fruitful to work through them one delegation at a time.  Even if proposing an amendment in the nature of a substitute were allowed (hypothetically) a scattergun approach to a dozen different delegates in several different delegations is quite likely to be voted down anyway, since  nearly everyone will find something in there to dislike.  So considering a wide ranging substitute is likely to be a large waste of time.

[J. J.]

On 8/26/2023 at 11:47 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree on the grounds that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

And as a practical matter, if there are genuine challenges to the seating of particular delegates, and the intent is to deal with these disputes on their merit, it is going to be more fruitful to work through them one delegation at a time.  Even if proposing an amendment in the nature of a substitute were allowed (hypothetically) a scattergun approach to a dozen different delegates in several different delegations is quite likely to be voted down anyway, since  nearly everyone will find something in there to dislike.  So considering a wide ranging substitute is likely to be a large waste of time.

Part of that is in my second question, and why I might disagree on the first.

Assume that the substitute is in order (and I am not necessarily saying that it is).  Abner, Jones, and the list of 23C and 37C are all on the Committee's roll and they are not being challenged.  I think they could vote on the substitute (presumably against it).  I am questioning if 59:24 would apply, because the attempt to substitute would not limit Abner's, et cetera, right to vote. 

[Atul Kapur]

Are you saying that Abner would not be allowed to vote on an amendment to strike Abner and insert Bey but that Abner could vote on a substitute that included Bey but not Abner?

That seems unreasonable.

[J. J.]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:49 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Are you saying that Abner would not be allowed to vote on an amendment to strike Abner and insert Bey but that Abner could vote on a substitute that included Bey but not Abner?

That seems unreasonable.

Yes, because Abner is technically not voting on amendment to strike Abner.  She would be voting on a report to substitute a minority report for the committee report.  It is technically a different question. 

[Atul Kapur]

Well, fortunately, it's a hypothetical question because the substitute is not in order (probably because it would otherwise lead to unreasonable situations and arguments as this).

Since it is hypothetical, I'm going to disengage at this point.

[J. J.]

On 8/26/2023 at 5:10 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Well, fortunately, it's a hypothetical question because the substitute is not in order (probably because it would otherwise lead to unreasonable situations and arguments as this).

Since it is hypothetical, I'm going to disengage at this point.

You answer assumes a fact not in evidence.

Actually, it is not quite hypothetical, either. 

The society put in its bylaws that the credentials committee may issue a minority report.  "Two or more members of the Bylaws and Rules Committee or of the Credentials Committee may join together to issue a minority report regarding their business."

To me, it is a question of if 59:24 would be applicable because the roll itself is not pending.  Even if the substitute is made, only then does the adoption of the roll (attached to the substitute) become pending and then 59:24 could apply. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/26/2023 at 4:01 PM, J. J. said:

Yes, because Abner is technically not voting on amendment to strike Abner.  She would be voting on a report to substitute a minority report for the committee report.  It is technically a different question. 

It's what they call a distinction without a difference.  And besides, it's not in order in the first place.

On 8/26/2023 at 5:43 PM, J. J. said:

The society put in its bylaws that the credentials committee may issue a minority report.  "Two or more members of the Bylaws and Rules Committee or of the Credentials Committee may join together to issue a minority report regarding their business."

To me, it is a question of if 59:24 would be applicable because the roll itself is not pending.  Even if the substitute is made, only then does the adoption of the roll (attached to the substitute) become pending and then 59:24 could apply. 

Okay, then they can issue a minority report.  Does anything compel the convention to consider it?

And even if they do, they can't accept the minority report as a substitute, because they can't amend the committee report unless it is pending. 

Edited August 26, 2023 at 10:53 PM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:52 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It's what they call a distinction without a difference.  And besides, it's not in order in the first place.

Okay, then they can issue a minority report.  Does anything compel the convention to consider it?

And even if they do, they can't accept the minority report as a substitute, because they can't amend the committee report unless it is pending. 

I cannot find anything in the book that says it is out of order.

The only thing that would "compel" the convention to consider it is a motion to substitute.

I'm beginning to see two aspects to the credentials committee report.  First is the report itself.  Second is the motion to approve the roll of delegates that is part of that report.  59:24 applies to the adoption of the roll of delegates, when pending. 

Because 59:24 is not, at least in theory, applicable, everyone on the committee submitted roll could vote on the motion to substitute. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Nah.

[J. J.]

On 8/27/2023 at 1:25 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Nah.

You will need something a tiny bit more solid than that.  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/27/2023 at 7:31 AM, J. J. said:

You will need something a tiny bit more solid than that.  

Not really, since I reject the notion that a substitute would be in order.

[J. J.]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:55 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Not really, since I reject the notion that a substitute would be in order.

You will have to come up with a reason for ruling it out of order and 59:24 would not apply to the substitute of the report.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/26/2023 at 4:43 PM, J. J. said:

The society put in its bylaws that the credentials committee may issue a minority report.  "Two or more members of the Bylaws and Rules Committee or of the Credentials Committee may join together to issue a minority report regarding their business."

I continue to maintain that, under the rules in RONR, a motion to substitute a minority report for the report of the Credentials Committee is not in order if the report includes changes to more than one delegation, and that such a motion is an "amendment" in the sense that term is used in 59:24. For these reasons, I would rule such a motion out of order if the rules in RONR are all that is controlling. If it is desired to effectuate the minority report, it would be necessary for members to propose each of the individual amendments required to make the credentials committee match the minority report.

The fact that a society has put in its bylaws, however, specifically providing that such reports are permissible, may well suggest that the society intends to permit a motion to substitute of this nature. I would have to review the society's rules and confer with the society's officers to determine how this rule has been interpreted in the past.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this motion is in order, however, I would say in that instance that all delegates included on the original credentials committee report would be able to vote, since I don't see how this would be counted as an amendment for some parts of 59:24 but not others. The controlling rule would then be the more general last sentence of 59:24.

"On the question of adopting the Credentials Committee's report or on motions connected with its consideration, only those persons whose names are on the list of voting members reported by the committee (as this list stands after any amendment already approved by the convention) are entitled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24

(There is also the practical issue that if it is correct that substitution of a minority report may make unlimited changes to the report of the Credentials Committee, providing that persons who are affected by this change cannot vote could lead to absurd results.)

On 8/26/2023 at 7:56 PM, J. J. said:

I cannot find anything in the book that says it is out of order.

The only thing that would "compel" the convention to consider it is a motion to substitute.

I'm beginning to see two aspects to the credentials committee report.  First is the report itself.  Second is the motion to approve the roll of delegates that is part of that report.  59:24 applies to the adoption of the roll of delegates, when pending. 

Because 59:24 is not, at least in theory, applicable, everyone on the committee submitted roll could vote on the motion to substitute. 

I think in the case of an ordinary committee report, this distinction between the report and the recommendations contained therein makes sense. But as I read the sections pertaining to credentials, it seems to me that the roll of delegates is the report of the credentials committee. There is no distinction between the roll and the report. An amendment to the report is an amendment to the roll, and vice versa. The text refers to the adoption of the report, which is distinct from the manner in which RONR ordinarily discusses committee reports.

"Before the Credentials Committee report is adopted, since the membership has not been established, the only motions that are in order are those related to its consideration or to the conduct of the meeting before its adoption, as well as those that are in order in the absence of a quorum (40:6–8)." RONR (12th ed.) 59:22, emphasis added

"When the report of the Credentials Committee is adopted, it is thereby ratified as the official roll of voting members of the convention—subject to changes through later reports." RONR (12th ed.) 59:25, emphasis added

Edited August 28, 2023 at 01:48 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 8/28/2023 at 9:46 AM, Josh Martin said:

I think in the case of an ordinary committee report, this distinction between the report and the recommendations contained therein makes sense. But as I read the sections pertaining to credentials, it seems to me that the roll of delegates is the report of the credentials committee. There is no distinction between the roll and the report. An amendment to the report is an amendment to the roll, and vice versa. The text refers to the adoption of the report, which is distinct from the manner in which RONR ordinarily discusses committee reports.

"Before the Credentials Committee report is adopted, since the membership has not been established, the only motions that are in order are those related to its consideration or to the conduct of the meeting before its adoption, as well as those that are in order in the absence of a quorum (40:6–8)." RONR (12th ed.) 59:22, emphasis added

"When the report of the Credentials Committee is adopted, it is thereby ratified as the official roll of voting members of the convention—subject to changes through later reports." RONR (12th ed.) 59:25, emphasis added

I think that hearing a minority report, and substituting one committee report, with roll attached, for another very clearly relates to its consideration.  59:23 does indicate that it is more than the report of the roll.

59:22 does envision situations where it would be necessary to vote on things prior to the adoption of the roll.  My guess would be that only the people on the roll submitted by the committee could vote on those.  To hear a minority report, it would take a majority vote and Abner, Jones, et cetera, could vote for it.  59:24 could not apply. 

Substituting the committee report of a minority would work the same way, because there is no actual striking out.  Abner, Jones, et cetera, could vote, as they are still on the committee roll at the time the vote is cast. 

It would be more difficult to remove Abner, Jones, et cetera, using this, because they can all vote against the motions to both hear and to substitute the minority report.  If not substituted someone could move to strike out Abner, individually, and Bey inserted; she couldn't vote on it.  Same with the others.  If the report was substituted, Bey could be struck out and Abner inserted, but Bey could not vote on it. 

 

 

[Burke Balch]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:52 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The society put in its bylaws that the credentials committee may issue a minority report.  "Two or more members of the Bylaws and Rules Committee or of the Credentials Committee may join together to issue a minority report regarding their business."

With respect, I disagree that a bylaw provision simply authorizing a credentials committee minority report works any change in the governing rules for amendments to the roll of delegates submitted by the credentials committee majority in the parliamentary authority if that authority is RONR (12^th ed.), nor do I agree that

On 8/28/2023 at 9:46 AM, Josh Martin said:

The fact that a society has put in its bylaws, however, specifically providing that such reports are permissible, may well suggest that the society intends to permit a motion to substitute of this nature. I would have to review the society's rules and confer with the society's officers to determine how this rule has been interpreted in the past.

The relevant language in Principle of Interpretation 1 states, "When the meaning is clear . . . the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws.  An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation.   . . . Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain . . . "   RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(1).

When the bylaws provide that two or more members of specified committees may jointly issue a minority report that supersedes the default rules in RONR in two respects:

•  1) under Principle of Interpretation 56:68(4) it prevents a minority report unless at least two members of the committee agree to it, whereas  51:69 refers only to a "minority" which could include a minority of one; and
• 2) it establishes that two members have the right to issue a minority report, superseding the provision in 51:69 under which if there is an objection to receiving the minority report "A majority vote is required to receive a minority report . . . ." 

However, the bylaw provision says absolutely nothing about what amendments are in order to the roll of delegates whose adoption is moved on behalf of the credentials committee. To interpret it as doing so goes far beyond its plain meaning and clear language.

 

As background, the following points made in this thread are undoubtedly accurate:

1) A substitute, whether proposed in a minority report by members of the credentials committee or by a delegate from the floor, is an amendment.

2) The more specific provisions in 59:24 that limit amendments to the roll of delegates to those covering at most the members of one delegation prevail, to the extent of conflict, over the rules applicable in general to committee minority reports contained in 51:70 that allow a motion to substitute a minority report.  See Principle of Interpretation 56:68(3). Thus, a substitute proposed in a credentials committee minority report that covers more than one delegation is not in order.

 

On the other hand, as has been suggested above, surely any individual members of the committee minority, or indeed any delegates, could separately move amendments to the roll submitted by the credentials committee (that is, approved by the credentials committee majority), each amendment being limited to no more than one delegation, that collectively parallel the recommendations in a minority report.

[J. J.]

On 8/28/2023 at 1:33 PM, Burke Balch said:

 

As background, the following points made in this thread are undoubtedly accurate:

 

1) A substitute, whether proposed in a minority report by members of the credentials committee or by a delegate from the floor, is an amendment.

 

2) The more specific provisions in 59:24 that limit amendments to the roll of delegates to those covering at most the members of one delegation prevail, to the extent of conflict, over the rules applicable in general to committee minority reports contained in 51:70 that allow a motion to substitute a minority report.  See Principle of Interpretation 56:68(3). Thus, a substitute proposed in a credentials committee minority report that covers more than one delegation is not in order.

 

While I agree that substitute is an amendment, I question what is being amended. 

59:23 tells us that there is a report and that there is a motion that grows out of that report.  59:24 instructs us on how to amend that motion, but it does not tell us about amending the report, in any form, except for the general comments in final two sentences.  Those tell us who can vote, not how an amendment can be made.

56:68 (3) would not apply because 59:24 applies to the motion, when pending, "that the roll of delegates hereby submitted be the official role of the voting members of the convention."  That motion is not pending when the report could be substituted, and 59:24 does not address any form of amendment to the report.  Maybe it should, but it doesn't. 

(If there would be a substitute, however, it would not be considered "contested" under 59:24 and all people on the Credentials Committee roll could vote.)

 

 

[Burke Balch]

I concede that the RONR references to adopting the "reports" of the three relevant convention committees can be confusing, since what is actually put before the convention for adoption are the three motions arising out of the reports: to adopt, respectively, the roll of delegates, the convention standing rules, and the program. 

If one considers the content of the report of the credentials committee, apart from the list of delegates and alternates whose adoption is moved, 59:23 says it consists of information concerning the time up to which registrations have been recorded along with "whatever statistical summary is customary in the paricular organization (frequently including a breakdown according to basis of voting membership . . . ) and always gives the total number of convention members entitled to vote  and the number of registered alternates." Now, with the arguable exception of the time up to which regisrations have been recorded, the statistical summary is tied to the roll that is being submitted for adoption, and to change it (except, conceivably, in the case of correcting a counting or arithmetical error) requires an amendment of the roll.  Certainly, some such amendments could result in changes in the number of delegates or alternates if, for example, an amendment were to be adopted adding to or subtracting from the number of delegates or alternates for a delegation. 

What sense, then, does it make to speak of amending the content of the report independently of amending  the roll of delegates and alternates? In particular, what sense would there be in a minority report proposing a substitute for the credentials committee report wholly independent of  the roll of delegates and alternates?

On 8/28/2023 at 2:47 PM, J. J. said:

56:68 (3) would not apply because 59:24 applies to the motion, when pending, "that the roll of delegates hereby submitted be the official role of the voting members of the convention."  That motion is not pending when the report could be substituted

That statement is simply incorrect. Even outside the specific context of a credentials committee, 51:69 (emphasis added) describes the sequence of considering the committee and minority reports: the minority report is received "immediately after the report of the committee. . . . As soon as the chair has stated the appropriate question on the committee report, he calls for the minority report . . . ." In the case of a report of a credentials committee, what is "the appropriate question on the committee report" the chair is to state? 59:23 gives the answer: "The committee chairman concludes the report by saying 'On behalf of the committee, I move that the roll of delegates hereby submitted be the official roll of the voting members of the convention.' "  That becomes the immediately pending question. It is made at the conclusion of, and as a part of, the committee report, and thus is moved before any minority report is delivered. If the notion is that the minority report could recommend a substitute, it would have to be for that pending motion.

I can see how the wording of the succeeding paragraph, 59:24, could lead to misunderstanding, because it refers to adopting the "report" as though it were equated with adopting the roll as just moved by the committee chairman.  However, careful attention to the language of the paragraph in context helps avoid this misunderstanding.  The paragraph begins, following the preceding paragraph's giving the language of the committee chairman's motion, by saying, "Unless there is debate or proposed amendment, the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, 'Are there any questions on the report?"  Amendment of what? Of the motion to adopt the roll of delegates the committee chairman has just made.  If there is any doubt, the very next sentence of 59:24 describes the type of amendment that is in order: adding a name "to the roll of delegates as submitted."  The paragraph goes on to say, "it is in order to move such amendments or even to move to substitute an entirely different set of delegates for any delegation in the reported list, but no such amendment is permitted to include more names than those of a single challenged delegate or delegation all of whom are challenged on the same grounds, together with any claimants involved." (Emphasis added.) In short, when using the locution "adoption of the report" and "adopting the Credential's Committee's report" the paragraph explicitly prohibits any one amendment from reaching more than, at most, the members of a single delegation. Therefore, if what is being suggested is some notion that there could be a substitute offered for the report that included proposing a substitute roll of delegates and alternates for multiple delegations, that would be explicitly prohibited by 59:24 even if one mistakenly assumed that an amendment was being offered to "the report" in some way distinct from being offered directly to the roll of delegates and alternates.

J.J. says that 59:24 applies to the motion, and in that his statement is correct.  However, the fact that 59:24 repeatedly refers to "the report" when forbidding amendments applying to more than one delegation should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that one can somehow avoid that prohibition by phrasing it as a substitute for "the report" rather than for "the roll of delegates".

The bottom line, nevertheless, is that what is placed before the delegates on the temporary roll for adoption is the roll of delegates and alternates proposed by the committee, and not the language used by the committee chairman in giving the credentials committee report (the statistical summary) that precedes making the motion to adopt its proposed roll of delegates.