This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 08, 2017. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission. >> Good morning, everyone. We're going to convene the open session for Thursday, June 8, 2017. And the first item on the agenda A207-O1 and 2017-03. I think we have an understanding that counsel will come to the table and we'll consider the two jointly. And if you want to flip on who goes first, that works. And if not, then I'll pick the one with the lowest number. Do you have a preference? >> I think I'll go first. We were the first ones to get our request in. >> For the record here, we have Kate Belinski here, and we have David on behalf of Europack. >> And Kate is a former E.A. >> Steven Walther: It's great to see you both there. I did have a conversation with the commissioner about the possibility of maybe hearing argument today and giving some thought, time for some thought. The vice chair, apologize, showed that your dead line would be for the 15th. The next meeting is June 22nd. It would take a few extra days on your end to allow us to come back on the 22nd. Is that something you're comfortable with at this time? >> Yeah. >> I'm not sure we'll want to do that, but we'll consider that. >> Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. As one of the commissioners, Commissioner Goodman mentioned, this is divorce court today. AUA, the American Urological Association has been associated with AACU. Over the course of the years, the two organizations have moved apart from each other, both ideologically, and also vision and mission. And also from a governance perspective, they no longer have the overlapping governance structure that they want had. They don't participate in their conferences. They're not doing joint conferences anymore. AUA is hosting a conference and allowing a number of other urological organizations to participate. But AUAA is one among many and may not even participate in that conference. There is some overlapping membership, as there was in 2002, but the AACU is a much smaller organization. Only 18% of AUA members, if you just do the math, AUA doesn't track dual membership, but just from a pure numbers perspective, only 18% of their membership would be a member of AACU, because they have over 22,000 members. For those 82% of members that are not also members of AACU, it's, you know, they don't have a voice in the political process. They aren't able to have their ideas and, you know, their candidates that they want to support. And it's at this point untenable for my client and they wish to be disaffiliated. Looking back at the AO back in 2002, I think it was tenuous at best that they were affiliated. I think there are a lot of organizations that have some overlaps and people. Someone may serve as a president as an organization, and then ten years later serve as the president of another organization, which is the case here. That doesn't make them affiliated. And I think you would have a lot of trade associations and membership associations that are affiliated. It would be a total shock for them to find out that they were affiliated if you used this standard, looking at them objectively. To say they're affiliated is perpetuating an opinion, a precedent that should not have been set in the first place, because they should not have been deemed to be affiliated in 2002. I think, you know, instead of doubling down on that bad precedent, if you looked at the objective facts of both of these organizations -- affiliated with any of its smaller, the American Medical Association, for example, with any of the smaller organizations. -- it doesn't make any sense for these sort of tenuous -- sit on each other's boards or organizations. There is a common , you know, be on boards. There are lobbyists. And although some of the state organizations from AUA use the same vendor as AACU, that vendor also has, you know, many, many, many other organizations that they represent and that they work for. And that should not create affiliation. It's basically, it's a management company. And as far as the formation, that, you know, we can argue about whether it was formed by members. Again they just happened to be members of AUA who also happen to be the individuals who wanted to have a more political arm or a more political organization. And, you know, decided on their own to form AACU. There was no vote that was taken by AUA. There was no formal resolution or discussion or anything. It was just a group of people who happened to be members of AUA who are politically minded formed that organization. So I think for all these reasons, if you look, I understand that the commission is in a difficult position because you have this 2002 AO and you are trying to look at what has changed since then. But if the AO is incorrect in the first time around and they shouldn't have been affiliated to begin with, I just don't think that you should be in a position to perpetuate that decision. So I think for all those reasons we would request that our advisory opinion request be granted. >> Thank you very much. Any questions at this point? Commissioner Goodman. >> Lee Goodman: I was looking through the various submissions just to kind of catalog the point of connection between the two groups. Excuse me. Can you tell me what am I missing here if I list among the principle relationship points historical affiliation. Some overlapping membership. Three members of the AACU sit on a 35-member health policy committee of the AUA. They co-sponsor events. I understand they used to jointly sponsor events according to an affiliation agreement now they will co-sponsor events, as many groups co-sponsor events, but they do co-sponsor events. I understand you say they have hired different lobbyists, but they align on legislative efforts. They hold some of these conferences and forums to align themselves on policy affecting urology. And I understand your argument is it's coincidental, but they do have at least one president who is going to sit on two boards? What's that connection point? Mr. Mason, I think this is your point really. >> Yes. The president elect of the AACU holds an office in the AUA such that he will rotate onto the AUA board in two years is my understanding. >> He concurrently holds? >> He will concurrently hold. >> He will be president? >> At that point he will be past president of AACU and consequently a board member by right and will also be a board member of AUA. >> So he'll be a board member of both organizations at the same time? >> At the same time. >> How many board members of each organization are there? >> There are 14 members of AACU. The AUA board member is larger, I'm not sure. >> Okay. So one board member of 14 of both organizations will serve concurrently. On both boards. >> But one did until either right now or until last month. And then one will again. >> And I understand your argument is that's coincidental. One person happens to serve. I'm just looking at the connection points. And then you have one associational management firm in common at the sectional level. Chairman Mason, are there other connection points I've missed in that catalog? >> The pattern of rotating officers I would argue is a connection point. And obviously we differ in how we characterize that and how we view the weight of it. >> Yes. >> But we laid out in our request a pretty extensive pattern and I would emphasize that was sort of partial. And particularly when you get down to the section level, it's very common to find people who are in different offices in the different organizations at the same time or who move back and forth from one to the other. >> Okay. Anything else in my catalog of connection points? >> Should we then -- >> I have another question, with your indulgence. >> Of course. >> Oh, you want to -- I'm sorry. >> I was wondering if we should let Mr. Mason and then we'll have a little back and forth. I don't know. It's up to you. Whatever you want to tomorrow >> I understand. Why don't I indulge Mr. Mason and give him that same opportunity. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and commissioners. To start off, AACU supports draft A. We appreciate it and thought it was a good piece of work that reflected both the commission's regulation and the prior AOs. I hadn't really thought about discussing the 2002-2003 AO, but I was at the commission at the time and voted for it and think it was correctly decided. And I do agree that if it was correctly decided then that has significant weight for the current request because while some things have changed, many things have not changed. And so if the 2002 AO was correctly decided, then I think there is a strong argument that the organization is still affiliated. That's what I believe and that's what I would ask you to find. There are a whole lot of things that we put in the submission that I won't repeat, so I'll emphasize the two that I think are most significant. And the one is the one that I just -- And when you have a pattern such that for instance 13 or 14 current AACU board members have been or are officers or committee members in various entities of the AUA, that's a pretty overwhelming pattern in terms of the AUA membership involvement. Same for the each of the last 11 AACU presidents have been officers in AUA at the national or section level. And that pattern as I say sort of extends down to the section level. And I think it's very robust. And the commission's regulation of course looks at patterns like these that indicate a formal relationship or an ongoing relationship. And while these relationships aren't formal in the sense of bylaw provisions that require this or anything like that, they certainly represent an ongoing relationship and a very strong one. The second factor I think is important is the membership overlap and naturally of course the larger organization is going to have a smaller overlap. But I've had many occasions since I left the commission in looking at affiliation AOs and trying to help associations figure out whether they're affiliated with another association or not. And I believe I'm correct in saying that in every case where there's been more than 50% membership overlap, where there's been an opinion, the commission has found an overlap. And that I know colludes when the commission was looking at national groups and state groups, so you would have a pattern such as this one where the state group members were 90% or some high number would be members of the national group. But obviously running the other way would be much smaller. And so if you decide that that factor is not relevant here or not sufficiently weighty to carry the weight, I think you'll have done something that hasn't been done before. And I actually think it will make it more difficult for organizations to figure out whether or not they're affiliated. The commission's regulation is difficult enough with a 10-part multifactor balancing test. I start talking to people about it and they, you know, it's immediately very difficult to understand. And so when you've got a couple strong factors that have been historically weighted strongly by the commission, it's actually very helpful in being able to counsel organizations. I think that's very important here and I think it ought to weigh strongly in favor of finding affiliation. Thank you. And I'm happy to entertain more questions. >> Steven Walther: Back to Commissioner Goodman. >> Lee Goodman: I apologize for jumping the gun. Let me go through my catalog of factors that would indicate separateness and let me make sure I at least have that comprehensive list. As I work through the submissions, I see that there are no formal governance powers, one group over the other. Do we stipulate to that? >> Yes. >> Lee Goodman: And that we do have separate boards. I understand we have an overlapping member. >> And not currently an overlapping member. >> Not currently. >> Correct. >> Lee Goodman: We have separate officers. At least at the national group. I understand that we have a firm that is the executive director. It's a third-party vendor, and some sections use a common director to be their executive director. At the national level there are no overlapping officers. >> Correct. >> Lee Goodman: There is no cross-funding between the two organizations at this date? >> Correct. >> It's my understanding they're small. I wouldn't suggest that it's a weighty factor, but it's at least as of my understanding that as of the last meeting there is some movement back and forth. >> Is that cost offset or operational subsidy? >> It's part of the agreement that ended in March. It's no longer going forward. There is no funding. >> Lee Goodman: No ongoing subsidy of each organization, other than some residual payments resulting from the agreement after March. Am I right about that? >> If that. Yeah. >> I would agree there is no subsidy. >> Lee Goodman: Okay. You canceled an affiliation agreement or are in the process of canceling an affiliation agreement that to me was quite persuasive in 2002. Is that canceled at this point? >> Yes. >> Not renewed. But same thing. >> Lee Goodman: And kind of a follow onto an earlier point about the bylaws and governance. There is no formal governance control over the activities of the other? In other words the bylaws don't give one organization any governance power over the other? Is that at the national level as well as the sectional levels? >> In terms of governance patterns, yes. I believe there's still a committee, some committee membership that's permitted from an AUA committee for AACU representation. >> Lee Goodman: I mentioned that earlier. Three members of the AACU sit on the committee of a 35 member committee of the AUA. But as far as the boards of directors and directing the funding and operations of the two organizations, does either have any governance power to direct the other? >> No. >> Lee goodman: At the sectional level, is there any such power to direct the fairs of the other? >> No. >> Lee Goodman: Okay. They are two C6 organizations. It sounds like, and I understand your point Chairman Mason about what significance we should make of this proceeding here today and its posture. But we have apparently two competing C6 organizations that are actually competing against each other. It looks like for either membership and/or legal independence. Am I right in that characterization? >> I wouldn't characterize it as competing and I hope and suspect that whatever the outcome of this particular decision by the commission and the fallout from it that the organizations actually will be cooperating in the future because it's going to be in the interest of both organization to cooperate. They represent the same professional groups and they're going to have the same objectives. So they are certainly separate organizations, but I think to describe them as competing is a non-legal judgment that may not have a place here. >> Lee Goodman: Okay. Point taken. But certainly in looking at the overall objective of the regulation. It's an anticircumvention recommendation, to prevent what is essentially one entity creating two entities and doubling its campaign contribution limits. The factors get at whether this is effectively one organization exercising two contribution limits. Why is it that you are both here in fundamental disagreement about your rights, why isn't that evidence that you're two organizations, and that you're not one organization circumventing the contribution limits. >> Is that for me, and I assume it is. >> Lee Goodman: You make the point that we should take no notice that we've all been called here today. (Laughter). >> This organization frequently finds itself at Loggerheads. We find ourselves on organizations where the boards very severe disagreements at different times. So I don't think that has a particular bearing. What we're talking about is a legal conclusion that flows from the other relations and the fact that in essence you're taking the legal conclusion, which we differ about and making that a factor in your legal analysis. And I don't think you can do that. >> Lee Goodman: Okay. Mr. Chairman, may I continue? >> Of course. >> Lee Goodman: Ms. Belinski, have I fairly cataloged what you think is the independence of the two organizations? >> Yes, I think you summarized that. And to the previous point, if I may, why in some sense they may be ideological points may be aligned, they have moved apart on some of the nitty-gritty issues. Their strategy is different. The types of candidates that they want to be supporting, the types of messaging that they want to be in are divergent. And AUA doesn't want to be basically handcuffed to AACU in terms of their political activities. They want to be able to exert the political independence that they have and should be able to exert in the political world. And being tethered to AACU is not allowing them to do that. >> Lee Goodman: Chairman Mason, do you have a reaction to that, because that does goes to the purpose that we have this regulation. Political organizations are effectively one organization with one objective. She says that AUA represents that they really are not all completely aligned with you and may diverge in different ways, which is evidence that you're not one organization. How do you react to that? >> I have difficulty reacting to it because it's not something I've tried to delve into with the AACU nor to this point has it been part of submissions. The groups obviously have had some organizational differences, but I'm not prepare to concede or address how deeply those go or whether they represent any substantial difference in political strategy or political preferences. >> Lee Goodman: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I continue? I'll be happy to yield and come back to other questions I have. >> No. Go right ahead. I'm in a hurry. >> Lee Goodman: Let me ask, a blank spot in my understanding of the two organizations are any relationships at the sectional level. It's easy to analyze the two Washington, D.C. based or I don't know if they're Washington, D.C. based, but the national organizations. And their relationship and membership at the sectional level. Have I missed any governance or operational ties at the sectional level such that the two organizations may be tied as a result of what's happening at their sections? And I understand you all call them sections. I would generally call them chapters, but we call them sections in these organizations? And they're geographical sections? I didn't fully understand, for example, we didn't have all the bylaws of all the section to see whether there might be some formal governance overlap at that level that might somehow feed up to the national level. Am I missing anything there that I should be focused on? >> Well, I believe the relations at the sectional level are relevant and indicative of affiliation. And the AACU doesn't have separate organizational affiliations the way the AUA does. In the case of the AUA, there are separately incorporated entities that are the sections. And there are bylaw provisions -- That's presented as part of a meeting. And most of those are not bylaw provisions, those are simply informal arrangements by the AACU bylaws. A majority of the AACU board is elected by AACU members from within the AUA's sections. So there is that explicit sort of governance tie back to how the board is selected. >> AUA does not have any corresponding provisions that require their section board members to be AACU members or anything like that. There is no tie there. >> Lee Goodman: I might have others, but let me -- Chairman Mason, I do have one question. This organization wants to divorce itself from the organization you represent. What would it take under your analysis can they ever operate their own political action committee? Or are you forever going to cling to them into their restricted class. Tell me what it would take. I've cataloged sort of the connection points. What can they do to shed themselves? Or are you saying given the overlapping membership and the history of these two organizations, they could never divorce from us? >> I would not say never. >> Lee Goodman: What would it take in your estimation? >> The gap that you're looking at is while there is a substantial difference at the national level, at the section level there is not. And for instance, that is evidenced by the fact that the sections were willing to contribute to the administrative expenses of Uropac after the national organization said no they wouldn't. And in fact most of them did. And it's that kind of cooperation that I think makes a substantial difference here that is unlikely to change given the nature of the organizations as I understand. >> Lee Goodman: Ms. Belinski, what's your reaction to my question and Chairman Mason's answer. >> That's what we're struggling with. The organizations can't get away from their past and they're always going to have some level of overlapping memberships. They have different perspectives and people join these organizations for different reasons. The AUA is generally policy focused and is more of an educational society. Whereas the AACU has a different focus. So people will always join both organizations because they're joining them for different reasons. And that's just part of the history of the organizations and there is no way that they're going to change. Some people will want to be. The other 82%, they're at a loss. And they're doing what they can do to get far enough away for Chairman Mason to say we're no longer affiliated. >> I'm struggling Dave with the fact that you're trying to get along by disagreements. That was always my experience working with you. It seems fitting. Kate, you said that the original AO was wrong and so, you know, we shouldn't compound the error by just sticking with the wrong answer. But as I understand it, both of your organizations came in and asked for that answer in 2002. >> They did. And I'm not saying -- and I don't want to say that the first AO was wrong. There were a lot of other ties. I'm just saying that to look at that AO and then try to say, you know, that that AO is the basis from which we have to say well have we gotten far enough away with the facts as opposed to looking objectively at the situation between the two organizations today. If those organizations had not had that prior AO and came in with these facts, would you say that they're affiliated? And I argue that they are not. And even reading the advisory opinion, reading through, you know, I think you could get to the end and there was a surprise conclusion because these facts weigh in favor disaffiliation, these facts are neutral. Here's a few facts that wave in favor, and even those were a stretch. It certainly wasn't a clear cut case. And then you get to the end and it's okay, so on balance these factors weigh in favor of affiliation, but I don't know. It's not as clear cut as in many of these affiliation AOs that have been considered in the past. And I think we are in just a very different position because we don't agree with each other. The two organizations don't agree with each other on fundamental issues. And, you know, to have them have to be tethered because of this 2002 AO, whether rightly or wrongly decided, and there were much stronger facts. There was a formal affiliation agreement in 2002, which certainly I think was important and, you know, maybe one of the weightiest factors. We don't have that now. And just looking at the facts objectively, I think we're in a much different position. >> I'm guessing everyone would agree this is a close call. I think obviously an argument could be made one way and an argument could be made the other way and you both have done it. These affiliation AOs are usually not -- >> Not this exciting. >> Yes. Not this exciting. And not this difficult. And normally, you know, I'm inclined to give some weight to whether organizations want to be affiliated or don't in deciding how the factors weigh. But that's not helpful here since there seems to be some disagreement. Do you feel that your membership is that their views are being misrepresented or that they are being associated with views that they don't hold? I'm trying to figure out what is the, what's driving the request from your client. >> Yeah. I don't want to say that they're being misrepresented, but they don't have the ability to represent themselves in the way that they wish to represent themselves. I mean there is no current decision to start their own PAC that then would have to be affiliated with AACU's PAC, but that may in the future be something that they do. And then they would be tied to these joint contribution limits where they would not be able to make the contributions that they want to make, because perhaps AACU has already made contributions in their name. And for political organizations that have political action committees, it's an important branding message. And AUA is not able to go out there with their message to congress and to members that they support and to get their message out basically. They're stuck with AACU's message. And they don't have their own, you know, their own ability to represent their membership basically,s which is what they're seeking to do. >> They can certainly go and talk to congress any way they want. There are other ways to getting your message to congress other than giving them money. >> Lobbying is obviously one, but a political action committee is an important tool in the toolbox for any membership organization that wants to be active in the political system. >> Sure. But you say that there's been no decision. You're not currently in a position where the client wants to start their PAC and they can't? >> I wouldn't say can't. They could certainly start a PAC, but they would just have to be affiliated. And clearly there is a not a lot of cooperation right now, so I think it would be difficult for the two PACs to operate, affiliated with one another, given the current situation. >> But there aren't two PACs now and you said there are no immediate plans to start one? >> We have not prepared paperwork. We're sort of waiting to see what happens here to decide what the organizations are going to do. I think it's a little premature at this point because I don't know that they would start a PAC if they had to be affiliated with AACU. >> Any questions? I had a couple questions. I'm mostly curious to know if we did nothing and allowed affiliation to continue, I assume there would be some further drift in some ways. And from the momentum or lack of their momentum, I'm inclined to know what that might be. Where would things be left in terms of future issues or that kind of thing? >> I mean I think the organizations would be left where AUA doesn't have a political voice and AACU does. I think that's basically where they would be at. I don't think that there's a lot of desire for, I mean certainly AUA is not going to go back to supporting financially or in other ways AACU's political action committee. That's not. Things are not going to go back to like pre-advisory opinion request days where we rewind the tape. AUA had already made the decision last year to stop providing administrative support to UroPAC and there is no desire on AUA's part to go back to that. >> I had some discussions with the AACU board as a part of this. And I think it's fair to characterize the AACU board as hopeful of improving relations with the AUA. And wanting that to happen. And hoping that happens in the future. >> If that were to happen, what would be some of the factors that would cause that? And at that particular point, I'm just wondering if there would be a second thought on the part of your client to say well maybe with those changes it's not so bad after all? >> I can't address -- >> It's going to take more than flowers. (Laughter). >> I can't address in detail what it might be. These are two organizations that historically had strong ties and then, you know, had some evolution and in about the 2002 period found a mode of cooperation. And I think it's fair to say that is not as robust as it was then. But again, from the AACU side, they are hopeful of having that restored and as leadership changes and organizational priorities change, just as they drifted apart to a degree, they may be able to come back together. >> So the biggest advantage to staying together is that you get to solicit all of the members. The larger group of members of the larger organization. But if it is true that the larger membership of the larger organization isn't interested in supporting the smaller organization then they're not going to make those contributions. They're not going to be contributing to the PAC. So what's the advantage to your organization of maintaining an affiliation with a whole bunch of people that don't want to be affiliated with you and aren't going to give you any money? >> Well I don't think that's the case, which is to say that the AUA, you know, the national organization is certainly not going to cooperate in solicitations, but urologists know other urologists and they're able to make solicitations of other urologists that they know to be currently members of the AUA, and that in fact has been occurring up to now. >> Mr. Goodman? >> How many urologists are members of the AACU? >> I'm going to have to look at my draft, but I believe it's just short of 3,000. >> How many of the AUA? >> 22,000. >> So the practical, whether or not the factors add up to being essentially a unitary organization, an organization with a restrictive class of 3,000 is trying mightily to remain affiliated with an organization of 22,000. An additional 19,000. And the organization that has 19,000 members doesn't want to open to solicitation those 19,000 to the other organization. >> That's correct. >> Commissioner, I would say that that is correct as to the national organizations, but it's not correct as to the sections. And at the section level, we have had sections who have contributed to the -- since the AUA stopped providing administrative support for UroPAC the sections have continued to do that and some of the sections have facilitated UROPAC at AUA events. >> I'm a little lost in terms of sections and which sections we're talking about. I think this is important. Are you saying that the AUA sections have continued to contribute to the administrative cost of the PAC? >> I am. >> So using associational money, they have continued to contribute to the administrative overhead. >> Yes, I believe that to be the head. >> I want to get reaction. >> I don't know. But this is what my client informed me of. >> Ms. Belinski, do you have a reaction to that. >> The sections are using their own funds. They're not AUA association funds. >> They are your sections. >> The sections have their own bylaws. They have their own boards. They're independent of AUA. >> So you're saying their continuing relationship including subsidy of this PAC should not be attributed to the AUA national organization? >> Yeah. I would argue that. >> Do you agree that you're affiliated with the sections of the AUA, that the national organization is affiliated with those? >> Yes. >> So by proxy AUA would not be affiliated with the AACU? >> They don't control the sections, so I would say no. >> I want to think about that a little bit more. But as I said, this is a blank spot, the relationship between these sections is something I didn't fully grasp from the submissions and what implications those relationships might have for the national organizations. When we talk about 22,000 members and 3,000 members, are we including the sectional members in those counts? Or not? In other words, if I'm a urologist, do I join my geographical section, and I may not be a member of the AUA? >> My understanding, let me just check. Yeah, it's reciprocal. >> So if I join my section, I am automatically a member of the AUA. >> Yes. >> So when we're counting 22,000 members, we're counting among all the section members plus those who independently join the AUA. >> Yes. >> And that's a comprehensive number. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I guess I want to just explain that I understand we have Chairman Mason until January 26th. Am I right, counsel? >> June. >> June 26th to provide the AACU a response to this advisory opinion request? >> Yes, the 60-day deadline is June 26th. >> And we have another meeting on June 22. >> But Ms. Belinski, we have you until the 15th. >> We would be happy to extend the dead line. >> Mr. Chairman, I might like a little more time to mull these nuances. I may ask the request for a little bit more time. >> I understand. >> Can you explain a little bit more what these sections are? I understand sections of the ABA, but I don't know enough about urology to understand what sections of a urological organization might be. >> Not to put my client on the spot, but I'm going to ask the general counsel to come to the table. >> Welcome to the chair. >> Thank you so much. They are quite different. The sections are independently organized. They're independently incorporated in various states. -- So they in part, membership in our board participate in the governance of the national organization does not exert -- So there's a rotating pattern and they do nominate the presidents. But it's not what I would consider a typical chapter relationship. All of the materials that they use or all of their agenda priorities, they are independent and kind of funnel up and participate in some ways in the national organization. I hope that helps. It's a bit of a strange beast. >> Chris. Let's keep moving. >> Dave, is there some way you could quantify by some support or how many people are contributing, or how much money, or some percentage, how much support your organization is getting from members of the larger organization that are not members of the larger organization. I'm trying to get a sense of what you stand to lose here? >> Sure. In terms of administrative funds in the request that six of the eight AUA sections contributed last year to administrative funding for UROPAC and so far in 2017 four of the eight AUA sections have made contributions. I don't have the dollar amounts of those. And it would be difficult to shred out the dollar amounts of PAC contributions because we would be looking for a subset of people who are AUA members who are not AACU members. And while we know that certain people in that category have contributed and have been solicited, because we don't have the, you know, cross access to membership lists, it might be difficult to give you a dollar figure. >> But you obviously feel that there would be some significant impairment. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Goodman. >> You said you don't have access to the membership list of the AUA. How do you know whom to solicit? How do you define your respective class if you don't have their membership list? >> In the context of section meetings, the people at the section meetings are all AUA members. >> You're talking about the section members of the -- >> AUA section meetings. >> So AACU representatives go to AUA section meetings and solicit people at those meetings? >> They do. >> Do the sections, the sections are what? Licensed by the AUA? How does AUA protect for example its name? And its intellectual property? Those types of things. I'm trying to understand better the relationship between the national organization and the sections. They're not chartered chapters. That's the way I understand, you know, most national organizations sort of charter chapters. >> They are chartered in the sense that they are set forth in our bylaws. >> Yes, I saw that. >> That's kind of the largest way that we determine the boundaries of the sections and who will be in each section. In terms of protecting our property, I honestly don't know. I don't think there's ever been an instance where we had those issues. >> Never had a rogue section. >> Yeah, not that I'm aware of. >> That is, Ms. Belinski is probably correct from a legal standpoint. We would be affiliated with the sections. There are close ties in many ways between the AUA and its sections. We're not denying that. I just want to make the point that we don't control everything they do. >> I understand that. But they control a lot of what you do. They send you members for your board of directors by region. >> Yes, they do that. >> So they have a lot of governance power over the national organization. >> Each individual section sends us one member. >> Is that eight? >> Eight of about 13 or 14 board members of the AUA national. >> Correct. >> Are sent to you by your sections. >> Correct. >> That's a governing majority it looks like? >> But the eight of them are not a body. It's not sort of the section versus the officers it's a 14 member board. >> I understand. But the sections wag this dog. The sections, I'm not saying the sections as a practical matter the sections have all gotten together and there is some coalition, you know, where most of your board votes are probably consensus votes. But I'm just saying that the sections effectively control the national organization because they control eight seats of a 13 or 14 member board at the national level. >> That is true. >> Okay. And I want to get back to this point about whether or not I should consider the continuing involvement of these sections with the AACU and its PAC and attribute that to your national organization? Why shouldn't I attribute those continuing relationships and activity to the national organization? >> Well I will say that the eight-section board members are among the board majority that want to divorce themselves from AACU. I think you can go around and around with it. The sections, I don't know why they are still contributing funds to AACU, but it may be because there is no alternative at this point. There is no other political committee that they can contribute those funds to and be a part of at this point. That's what we're asking for. We're asking for them to have the ability to contribute administrative funds to AUA's PAC at some point in the future if they decide to do that. >> The decision to assert your independence from the AACU, was that done by board resolution of the AUA? Is there a board resolution calling for independence and disaffiliation in some form of words? Or was it merely the officers? >> No, there was a full board vote. >> A board vote. And was that a unanimous vote? >> Yes. >> Anything further? >> I just want to comment when I came in here today, I only have one set of drafts that support one point of view, one potential answer on the table, and I was inclined to support it. But I do think it's a serious question that's being raised here as to whether the broader membership of the larger organization is being forced to maintain an association that they don't want to maintain. And that doesn't seem like a good result either. So I think I share Commissioner Goodman's view that perhaps a little bit more time, and I really don't know where I'm going to land on this. But I think a little bit more time to chew on these issues would be beneficial. >> If we do that, would you like to have an additional opportunity to give us a ten-page brief or something like that? Or would you like to forget that and let us worry about it? (Laughter). >> Whatever would be helpful to the commissioners. >> I think we learned a lot at this session. That's for sure. >> As much as we support Draft A, obviously if there is a different draft, we would appreciate the opportunity to comment on that. >> Well, any further questions? Then at this point we'll leave it. We'll resume on the 22nd. Thank you very much. It's very edifying. Commissioner Weintraub would like a moment of personal privilege. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to introduce everyone to a couple of wonderful new interns that we have in our office. Emma and Lawton. Do you guys want to stand up? You can sit down now. I just wanted people to know what you look like. We're very lucky to have them with us for the summer. They're both undergraduates at Davidson College in North Carolina. They're interested in politics nationally and internationally. Lawton is a double major in political science and Mexican studies. And Emma is a double major in political science and Russian studies. And they have a number of activities that they've been involved with. And we're delighted to have them and welcome everybody to come by and chat with them and say hi. >> Thanks very much. Yes. And welcome. Our first congenial meeting was very good. >> Was that our first congenial meeting? >> Not quite that way. But your first meeting was congenial. What can I tell you? (Laughter). Thanks. I think we have no further business. Any management items >> There are no such matters. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks again for coming.