Talk:111th United States Congress/Archive 1

Archive 1

Denoting composition of states' House delegations

Currently each delegation is summarized as, for example, "4-3 Republican"; would there be any objections to my (or someone else's) changing these to, as in this example, "4 Republicans, 3 Democrats"? I think this would be more precise and more clear to someone who might not be very familiar with the subject. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Eh, fine. —Markles 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) On second thought, it's excessive. I mean, looking at most delegations, it's easy to see the count by eye. The 4-3 score simplifies the work the reader has to do. But adding labels for both parties is just unnecessary and clutters the article.—Markles 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a vacator?

In the Changes in Membership, why do we have the word "Vacant" in the Vacator column? Should we leave the name in the column even after they resign? user:mnw2000

• It means that the seat was vacant since the beginning of that Congress. It's a "changes in membership" section, so we can't say that, for example, Rahm Emanuel vacated the seat because he wasn't in it during this Congress. It's a standard that's been used in previous Congresses.
  • I think that logic might hold for Illinois's Senate seat, but Rahm Emanuel was elected to a term beginning on January 3, 2009. His letter of resignation will be presented, I would imagine, when the 110th House next meets (scheduled to be 11 a.m. on Jan. 3) and again when the 111th House convenes on Jan. 6. -Rrius (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Does that matter? What if he died in December?—Markles 23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • He almost certainely included language in his letter resigining from the 110th that would count as not accepting his election to 111st. In any case he won't be there to be sworn in for the 111st. If an existing member of the House dies after being reelected but before the new congress, his seat is considered vacent in the old one from the date of death, and will start as vacent in the next congress until a special election is held. In the case of an existing Senator, usually the Governor would appoint somebody, and would take effect shortly after the Senate next met (which could be in the next session). Jon (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
        • He did not. The letter is available online. As to the rest, no one is disputing that the seat is vacant from the beginning, but it is vacant due to the resignation of the member-elect, not just vacant in the abstract. I am not sure what your point is with the appointment, but it is not accurate. A senator appointed during a sine die adjournment of the Senate is a senator from the date of appointment; a senator appointed while the Senate is in session is a senator from the day he or she takes the oath. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It would be noted that due to the death of the member-elect, the whole number of the House is 434. I don't see what harm is done in saying that he is the vacator; it's not as though we are listing him among the representatives in the long list. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When does the Congress "begin"?

• January 6 is when the 1st session convenes, but didn't the Congress "begin" at noon today?—Markles 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The terms of people elected in November began today, but I don't think Congress is consistent about when a Congress begins and ends. It can be Jan 3 to Jan 3 or date first session convenes to date last adjourns sine die depending on context or whim. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Section 2 of the 20th Amendment dictates that Congress shall meet at least once a year beginning at noon on January 3, but can "by law appoint a different day." Pursuant to public law, the 111th begins on January 6, not January 3. It's silent on when a Congress adjourns, only requiring concurrence of both Houses for adjournments more than 3 days. The fact that the 20th also says terms start on January 3 helps add to all that confusion. According to Riddick's Senate Procedure, you aren't a senator until you "present yourself for the oath of office," which is why Biden was qualified even though elected at 29, since he turned 30 prior to taking the oath. Not sure how constitutional scholars tend to view the difference in dates, since the Senate has a great deal of latitude over the conduct and swearing in of its own members. I'd tend to go with whatever dates the Senate says certain senators began their terms, rather than relying strictly on the text of the 20th Amendment, even if they do tend to contradict each other. If the Senate updates its chronological list of Senators and uses January 6 rather than January 3, then I'd go with January 6 for all incoming freshmen. It's not like states are without Senate representation (other than Minnesota and Illinois) since Congress isn't in session from January 3 to January 6, and senate offices aren't open on Saturdays and Sunday.DCmacnut<> 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do they get paid for the time Jan 3 - Jan 6? Can they use their offices? Is the Jan 6 just the date of the formal swearing in? The constitution does say that House Members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms and Congress may not change that by even one day -- how does that affect it?—Markles 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is paid from Jan 3. Appointed senators are paid from the time of their appointment (if Congress is adjourned) until the successor is elected. House members can usually move into their offices early in January, but freshmen senators get temporary office space in the Dirksen basement or Russell Courtyards until March. Defeated senators had to move out of their offices by Dec. 1, but final office picks aren't made yet. It takes at least 6 weeks or so for the Senate Sergeant at Arms to get offices ready (furniture, antiques, etc. that senators can request). There is a massive office-by-office upgrade going on of the modular cubicles Senate staff use, and the SAA uses this time to get that furniture in the offices being emptied, adding to the time it takes to move in. I affectionately referred to the temporary office space in Dirksen as the dungeon during my time in the Senate.

I believe Coleman's office is excluded from selection by incoming freshmen pending outcome of the race. If Franken wins, he'll get Coleman's office, but probably will get temporary space while Coleman's staff moves out and archives office records from Coleman's 6 years.DCmacnut<> 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 2 and 6 years is the maximum, not a minimum. Both houses hold the right of a member to resign prior to the end of his or her term as sacrosanct, and the Constitution provides for expulsion prior to a term is completed. Also, some senators have actually waited prior to taking their seat. Huey Long waited until his term as Governor ended before taking his Senate seat, nearly 2 years after being elected. Rush D. Holt, Sr. (D-WV) waited until turning 30 in June 1935 before taking his seat, which set the precedent. The 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933. This leads me to believe some flexibility exists on when a senator "officially" takes office. Moreover, you have to take the oath in open session to officially take your seat. Rebecca Felton was senator for one day November 21, 1922, depsite being appointed a senator October 3. She had to wait for the Senate to reconvene to formally take her seat and present her certification of appointment, and sign the roll book of Senators. Roger Wicker was appointed during a sine die adjournment, so his term started from the date of appointment, but he couldn't take the oath until January 2008.DCmacnut<> 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to 2 U.S.C. § 33 senators receive compensation starting at the beginning of their term (Jan 3) even if they present credentials and are sworn in after January 3. 2 U.S.C. § 36 addresses salary of appointed senators or senators elected to fill unexpired terms. Riddick's Senate Procedure, page 710, states precedent from 1939 that "the Senate fixes the time at which the service of a Senator begins." 2 USC 33 seems to resolve Senate prerogative in having terms start after Jan 3, but ensuring they are paid from Jan 3.DCmacnut<> 03:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• So let's revisit my question: when does the Congress "begin"? The answer seems to be: January 3. A member's term begins then and ends then. Picture this: You show up to a job on a Monday, but the boss doesn't come in until Wednesday. So you use your first two days getting settled into your office, meeting your staff, taking care of HR paperwork, etc. Then the boss comes in, gives you an assignment, and you get to work. You're given two weeks notice, ending on a Friday, but the boss takes the last week off and gives you no assignment. So you spend the last week cleaning out your desk, sending out resumes, etc.—Markles 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that Jan 3 is the start of the congress. Sessions can begin different dates, and the Senate fixes its own dates when senators terms start, which for internal Senate purposes is generally when they take the oath and sign their name in the Official Oath Book of senators. It's a lot more pomp and circumstance than anything else, but when it comes to the Senate tradition tends to trump a lot of logic on occasion. I admit I'm a bit biased having worked there. Again, I'll abide by whatever date Senate states is the date for the start of term for this new batch of freshmen.DCmacnut<> 06:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate does not set the date when senators' terms begin, it only controls when a senator enters into office. The Constitution states when a senator's term begins and cannot be trumped by Senate rule. I don't think the Senate in any rule or operating procedure attempts to say when senators' "terms" begin, but merely when they enter into the performance of the office, qualify, or whatever other term they want to use. Also, your analysis is not quite right about not being a senator if the Senate isn't a session. LBJ had to clarify a whole mess about who the Senator from South Carolina was after Strom Thurmond was elected to the seat he had resigned. The same issue came up with two Texas appointments, ironically including LBJ's. The upshot is, an appointed senator is a senator from the date he is appointed until the day his successor is elected and qualifies, unless the Senate has adjourned sine die. If the Senate has adjourned sine die, the appointed senator's term ends on the day the new senator was elected, and the elected senator is a senator from the day after the election. This is the same rule that is set out in statute for paying senators. -Rrius (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since dates when a person becomes a senator came up, I want to address what date should be listed for incoming classes. There are actually three founts of seniority: the Senate, through the Rules Committee policy; the Democratic Caucus; and the Republican Conference. The only one of those whose policy is easy to find on online is the Republican Conference. It would makes sense that all three would refer to the same starting date for senators. The Republican rules say that seniority for people initially elected to a regular term begins on January 3. -Rrius (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that the constiution is not trumped by Senate rules. However, both the consitution and all amendments dealing with the beginning of the terms also clearly stated after the date something like "or such date as Congress shall set". I'd recomend checking the articles for the last 20 or so years for congresses in which the first session wasn't on the 3rd to see if they listed the 3rd or the actual date. Jon (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, no. The Constitution says that terms start on January 3, and that the Congress shall meet at least once a year on Jan 3. or such other date as Congress provides by law. It is the dates of the meeting, not the term of office, that Congress can change. If you actually read the 20th Amendment, it is quite clear that the ability to vary dates applies only to scheduling the meeting, not to the terms of office. The whole reason for passing the 20th Amendment was that Congress couldn't vary the terms of office by statute, and that was without the Constitution saying "March 4". As Markles said above, the Congress cannot vary the terms of senators and representatives by even one day. -Rrius (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments were focused on how the Senate determins seniority and my experience with how the Senate operates. Senators take their independence and Constitutional control over their own members very seriously. We all agree that the Senate itself is contradictory on when terms start, but the fact remains that senators from the 105th Congress are listed as having taken office on January 7 and Senators from the 106th as starting on January 6. The 107th convened on the 3rd and all senators are listed as the 3rd. The 108th, 109th, and 110th list the senators terms as starting on the 3rd, even though that's not the date the session convened. My point as always been that we need to go by the dates the Senate uses in reliable sources for the start of terms. We had this debate several times with the old March 3/March 4 problem with early Congresses, and consensus was to use the dates Congress itself uses, rather than imposing our own timetables to match what the Constitution clearly says.DCmacnut<> 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with blindly relying on those sources, which aren't the Senate or Congress, but rather their historical offices, is that sometimes they say truly absurd things such as "for the term ending January 2". No term ends on January 2, yet that is what they come up with. Also, they sometimes the Biographical Directory shows an overlap in Senate service because it shows an appointee serving until the new senator qualifies, but shows the new senator taking offices the day after election.

What we really need is a copy of the rule or policy or whatever as amended in 1980. If, as would seem quite reasonable, it matches the Republican rule, it will say that seniority is from January 3, not the first date the Senate convenes. This would make sense since, with one exception, the seniority date is the same as the date senators are paid from (the exception being the 1980 change about senators appointed after election day). Senators are, as was alluded to above, paid from January 3, not the first day the Congress convenes. I'll provide links at some point, but I've gotta go back to analogue life for a while. -Rrius (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having related discussions in real life and here, and I don't think I was responding to the right one here, so nevermind. -Rrius (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" senate seats

The one from Minnesota is still vacent at the moment since the election isn't quite complete yet. The canvansing board has now signed off on it, but neither the governor nor the Secretary of State have. Typically that takes about a week after the canvansing board does so. (Typicaly that delay is to allow court challenges to be filed.) The seat from IL is also still vacent. The Senate Parlimenatarian noted the absence of a required signature (that of the IL Sec of State.) Jon (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Minnesota seat, once again, is not vacant. The election is not resolved. If it were vacant, Tim Pawlenty would be able to fill it by appointment. For Illinois, the vacancy has been filled by appointment. The appointee, Burris, has been unable to adequately prove his his appointment to the Senate because his credentials are not in the prescribed form. If the Senate decides to refer his certificate of appointment to the Rules Committee after he does get the Secretary of State Jesse White's signature, the seat will also not be vacant. The word "vacant" has a particular meaning in this context, which is that no one has a right to the seat. At this point someone has a right to the Minnesota seat, but the election process needs to work itself out to determine which of two men it is. In Illinois, for the moment, Roland Burris has some right to the seat. If the Senate rejects his appointment, then there will be a vacancy. -Rrius (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For MN, how about "Frankin/Coleman (disputed)"? After all, it is either one or the other, but no decision (by the Senate) has been made. user:mnw2000

I'd agrue that the Minnesota seat is temporarily vacant, pending election results. Coleman's term expired January 3, 2009. As of today (Jan 6), nobody has been sworn-in as his successor. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We should not put a name in for IL or MN since there is currently NO ONE sitting in those chairs and the Senate only has 98 members right now according to SENATE.GOV. If you don't like the term VACANT, then use the term TBD. user:mnw2000

After a second look. The current Senate template info is accurate (55 Dems, 41 Reps, 2 Ind, 2 disputed). GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't get your proper paperwork signed by the Secretary of State, you may have been nominated, but you are not a Member of the Senate. Had Roland Burris had his paperwork signifying this, I would see no issue, but his name needs to be removed.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• To put no name in there or "TBD" or "vacant" is wrong. Leave the disputed names (both of them) there. Note the dispute. If (and when) there is an update, then we should update it then.—Markles 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if your name isn't listed on the senate [website], YOU ARE NOT IN THE SENATE.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And list wouldnt be wrong, because its factual..even harry reid made mention to the fact that there are two senate seats that are vacant. the IL and MN. and to put incorrect info into an article and expect people to be okay with that is not just wrong, it makes the page inaccurate.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is actually reason to question whether the Senate has the authority to create a qualification that the executive authorized by a state legislature has to have the appointment countersigned by another official. You are taking Harry Reid's position and assuming that it is the law. That is POV. Arguing that the Senate website is the be all end all on the issue of who is a member is just plain silly. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Reid's opinion aside, he has no paperwork to certify his nomination, nor was he sworn in. He sees himself as the Junior Senator, but he really isn't. The steps to get into the Senate legally hasn't been followed by him and the fact that we are fighting over something that is cut and dry, is becoming redundant. Don't we have a duty to post the most accurate information?--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He absolutely does have paperwork. He has a Certificate of Appointment in the prescribed form signed by the governor. Both Burris and Blagojevich have done everything they can do. Secretary of State Jesse White decided (apparently after talking to Harry Reid) to not sign the certificate as is required, required, by Illinois law. To try to put this down to a failure on Burris's part to do something is simply wrong. It is indisputable that Burris was appointed; the only dispute is whether the Senate has the right to prevent him from taking his seat. For the time being, the Senate is preventing him from taking the seat, but having the physical power to do so is not the same as having the right. Wikipedia needs to reflect the actual situation, not just one side's perspective of it. The fact is, Blagojevich appointed Burris, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate is trying to prevent him from being sworn in. Both parts of that need to be represented, which is what everyone else is trying to do. Simply saying he is not a senator full stop is not helpful to the process. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at SENATE.GOV. There is NO ONE in the two disputed seats. Why would Wikipedia list names when SENATE.GOV does not? user:mnw2000

Why would we ignore the rest of the universe of knowledge and rely solely on senate.gov? All that site is going to show is who has been sworn in, which is not the only thing to be taken into consideration. -Rrius (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple fact is that he is NOT the Senator from Illinios, that is point blank. No one is recognizing his SIGNED and UNSIGNED paperwork. Since it is still in question, it shouldn't be listed here. We have a responsibility to uphold here people, why aren't we doing it?--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are 98 members at the start of the 110th congress, 41 Republicans, 55+2 Democrats. Even if Burris were eventually seated, he would not be retroactively be added to the rolls -- that seat is clearly a vacancy and should not be counted for either party despite the near inevitability of a Democratic appointee. Franken could also not be retroactively seated or otherwise counted toward the total number of senators at the start of the session. Listing these seats now as part of the Democratic caucus is simply more misinformation from Rrius. The seats should simply be listed as vacant with footnotes explaining the situation, as that is what they are. When Franken or a new appointee is FORMALLY seated, that should be noted in the timeline of Senate composition, so that it will stay as an accurate record of this legislative session. (Keep in mind that the precise number of sitting senators is significant to note, as that figure affects the number of votes needed in certain procedural matters, such as votes for cloture. -estuary jones

Don't ya mean the 111th Congress? GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, just so you are aware Rrius, the Senate is the ultimate arbiter of who is in the Senate. Who gets "appointed," who gets voted into office, this sort of thing is irrelevant compared to the actual procedural matter of the Senate admitting a new member. I hope you learn from this experience. --estuary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.205.248 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. See Powell v. McCormack. The power to judge "elections, returns, and qualifications" is not carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want to do. Instead of being condescending, why don't you make sure you know what you are talking about. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris was appointed on December 30 and attempted to present himself for the oath on the next day the Senate was in session. Given the way salary and seniority work, there is reason to believe he will be considered to have been a senator since that date. Franken was elected on November 4 for a term beginning January 3, he will presumably present himself at the first opportunity. There is every reason to believe that he will be paid and have seniority from January 3. -Rrius (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That they might later be deemed legaly to be retroactively filled for pay purposes is speculation. The US Senate has the say so on who is and who is not a Senator. In the mean time the Senate is saying the Secretary of State signature is needed for the appointment to be valid. It is speculation to presume that Barris is going to win the lawsuit he's filed against the IL Sec of State seeking to compell him to sign. In the case of Minnesota, the legal challenges were filed in court yesterday which per Minnesota law delays the sign off of their Sec of State until the challenges are resolved. Jon (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I feel that this list should reflect the senators that have been seated (as listed on SENATE.GOV) as many people do. However, the world disputed is rather vague, so the term "has not been seated" solves that problem and is very specific. The reference note explains whey they have not been seated. user:mnw2000

Current Senate Voting Share

It is incorrect to include the two disputed seats as part of the Democratic voting share. There are 98 Senators currently recognized by the Senate, 57 of which are Democrats, 41 of which are Republicans. Therefore, the vote share percentages are not 59% and 41%; they are 58.2% and 41.8%. I'm changing it now. Kingnavland (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good point! I've clarified it.—Markles 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidate: 110th United States Congress

Now that the 110th Congress is done, nobody's looking at it any more (boo-hoo). Could you diligent editors have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress and leave your comments (pro or con) there, please. Thank you.—Markles 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And while you're at it, consider adding the new template, {{Project Congress to do}} to the top of your User_talk page. —Markles 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vacant

When there is open seat (in the Senate or House), regardless of the reason, we should use the world "Vacant", not the a name. The rule should be when they are sworn in and seated. Burris will be seated soon, but the seat is still Vacant and Wikipedia is about facts. After all, something could happen between now and when he is to be seated that could change the plans and he could never be seated. He is not a senator until he is sworn in and seated. user:mnw2000

An appointed senator is a senator the day he or she is appointed (or the next day if the Senate is adjourned sine die). Why would wait until the oath? The Illinois case was weird because of Blagojevich and the credential rejection, but it has no bearing on what should be done in normal cases. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific members

Obama & Biden: expected to resign?

Why is Obama and Biden "expected" to resign. They HAVE TO RESIGN in order to accept the Presidency and Vice-Presidency!

In the case of Joe Biden, he can resign earlier than January 20th so the outgoing governor can appoint his successor or on January 20th after the new governor is sworn in (assuming he is sworn in prior to 12pm EST). Should be interesting...

Also, it is more than likely that they both will resign before the 111th Congress is sworn in on January 6th so that their successors will have seniority over the incoming freshman senators. (This especially true for Joe Biden as he is due to be sworn in as Senator for his new 6-year term on January 6th, only to resign before January 20th.)

user:mnw2000 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's "expected" because no one but them knows when they would resign. Technically, they don't have to resign until 11:59 am January 20, so until they make an annoucement, we have to be a little wishy-washy on our terms.DCmacnut<> 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wound it be more accurate to say "Until resignation prior to 11:59am on January 20th, 2009"?

user:mnw2000 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't change it. If you want to be technical, they don't have to resign. They could instead choose to keep their current positions and not become Prez & VP. But, of course, that's just plain stupid. I'm just saying we don't know when and it's sufficient to say that they'll resign on/before Jan. 20. The time is too picky. And I'm guessing they'll all resign during the 110th, not the 111th.—Markles 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama has already resigned, but Biden says he will wait until January 20th. However, if he resigns before the new congress is seated, the new senator can be sworn in and take senority over the freshmen senators. Wonder why Biden wants to wait until the last minute, unless he planning to forgo the Vice-Presidency and remain a Senator so he can continue to commute to Delaware every night. After all the Vice-President lives in Washinton, DC. Seriously, it is strange why Biden would wait until the new Congress is seated. user:mnw2000 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's old seat: Burris

There's multiple major news sources (Fox, CNN, others) quoting Democratic senators that they may refuse to seat anyone appointed by the current IL governor, so I think it may have been premature to have the governor's choice should be placed in the successor column in that succession box yet. Jon (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think Burris should be listed, but it should be noted that there is a controversy. -Rrius (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I reluctantly agree with User:Rrius's position. I think he will be seated despite all the hoopla. WP is not a forum for political debate, and editors ought to concede to the prevailing wisdom.—Markles 14:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing is, as far as I can tell prevaling wisdom in the US based on all the well known sources I've seen is that he won't. It should be a bit more clear when the Senate first meets in the 111st. Last I heard he's to be refused entry to the orientation for new Senators and thrown out by the capital police if he resists. Jon (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're right. Let's leave it as neutral as possible.—Markles 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While it seems that Senate Democrats have merrily proclaimed Burris' tenure to have begun December 31 for seniority purposes, is it accurate to reflect his being a member of this Congress before he was actually seated? In terms of voting on legislation and conducting all other Senate business, Burris simply wasn't in the Senate during those sixteen days, regardless of the post-dating funny business that has been pulled since. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana's 4th District

LA-04 is not decided yet. Provisional ballots and absentee ballots have not yet been added to the final total, nor are the returns reported on the Louisiana Secretary of State website considered final. I'm not going to revert it, because I have no interest in starting an edit war, but isn't it a little irresponsible to declare victory in a race separated by less than 400 ballots when there are thousands of ballots left still undecided? Captainktainer * Talk 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Party summary

If LA-04 is listed as TBD (which it is as of now), then we shouldn't have 435 total Reps in the party summary. What's the solution?—Markles 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is to say 433 or to make a new column for undecided races. I would lean toward the latter just because saying 433 is somewhat confusing. -Rrius (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• It ought to be done like the Senate one. I'd do it but I'm all confused about which seats are undecided.—Markles 19:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of Coleman's seat

Please see Talk:Norm Coleman#Dealing with the tricky situation of Coleman's Term Ending. Per Riddick's Senate Procedure, an ongoing contested election without an apparent victor is not officially vacant unless the Senate declares it to be vacant by resolution. Therefore, the seat most likely will not be listed as "vacant" when the 111th Congress convenes. It should be listed as "unresolved" until such time as Minnesota officials or the U.S. Senate make a formal decision with respect to the status of this seat. Hopefully, this will be resolved prior to noon on January 6 or shortly thereafter. If editors have any other comments to add or suggestions, please include them below.DCmacnut<> 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota: Franken vs. Coleman

I think this article should reflect the certified winner. (Until then, the seat is "TBD" or "disputed.") If there is a subsequent challenge which successfully overturns that certification, then it should be changed. What do you all think?—Markles 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. At the moment though there is no certification yet. (This makes the info box on that race a bit pre mature). That's not expected to happen until later today or perhaps tomorrow. Note though there's contrevsity on this one as well; Republicans are threating to fillibuster motions to seat Franken prior to Minnesota's Secretary of State signing off which isn't expected for at least a full week after the board certifies the result. In the mean time though the seat has been vacant since Noon on the 3rd US Eastern. Jon (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not vacant, it's unresolved. If it were vacant, Pawlenty would be able to appoint a senator. -Rrius (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Biden/Kaufman transition

Biden's resignation is effective at 5pm Eastern today and Kaufman is to be sworn in tomorrow. Does this merit an extra row in the composition table? Qqqqqq (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an extra row is warranted. My opinion is that composition tables are there to show large gaps or major changes. Whether Kaufman's appointment is effective at 5 pm Jan 15 or Jan 16 (depends on what his certification papers say) it's a gap of less than 24 hours, and it would just crowd the table.DCmacnut<> 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaufman's appointment was effective January 15, per his certification papers and Congress Bioguide. The delay in taking the oath is a requirement that oath's be administered in open session of the Senate and the oath was probably delayed for scheduling purposes.DCmacnut<> 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He was not a senator until he assumed the office after taking the oath of office on January 16. I think the extra row is necessary. – Zntrip 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... the senators elected last November weren't strictly taken senators from Jan 3, 12:00 pm to Jan 6, 12:00 pm but they're listed as senators from Jan 3. Cassandro (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently the "begin" and "January 15" rows are identical in terms of composition. Is the "January 15" row really necessary? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the row for the day is necessary, but earlier edits sporting the hours of vacancies were not.—Markles 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But the numbers are the exact same. Why bother to make a distinction? Qqqqqq (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Biden/Kaufman transition still mentioned in the "changes" section. It already happened. And why isn`t Obama/Burris mentioned even though Biden/Kaufman is? ABC101090 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about upcoming changes. As to Illinois, that's why I said it was debatable. There is a legitimate question as to whether there was really a change. Burris was a senator from the date of appointment, so there was never really a vacancy. On the other hand, he didn't take the oath until the 15th. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Arlen Specter

His party affiliation needs to be switched from (R) to (D) halfway down the page in the "Members" section, which lists each state's Senate delegation .

• Thank you, o anonymous unsigned user! When he makes it an official switch, THEN it should be done.—Markles 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Franken

Just a reminder: Franken is to be sworn in July 6, 2009 as the 100th Senator. Thus making the total 58-Democrats. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been sworn in yet Gang14 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's just a reminder for July 6. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that the swearing in will occur tomorrow, July 7.[1] We should keep an eye out here and all other related articles for any people jumping the gun, as recently happned at Seniority in the United States Senate, and only add it to the articles only after the actual swearing in takes place, which will likely be mid-morning on Tuesday.DCmacnut<> 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Right! Plus, can someone then update the committee pages? As well as Template:Project Congress to do.—Markles 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List(s) of legislation

Another Saxbe fix

The House passed S.J.Res. 3, a Saxbe fix pertaining to the office of Secretary of Interior. Should it be added to the Pending legislation list? The House has also sent to the Senate H.R. 35, dealing with claims of privilege for presidential records, and H.R. 36, dealing with donors to presidential libraries. -Rrius (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fixes sound non-notable to me. Things should be both note worthy and have valid links before adding to the pending legislation list. Chances are the vetoed items and several of the "... but not enacted" items from 110th will soon be in the proposed list for the 111st Congress soon enough to not have to worry about the list being too small. Jon (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Once SJRes 3 is signed by Bush, I think we can put it under public laws. I think it would qualify as notable, since it relates to the incoming Obama Administration. The 110th Congress already enacted a fix for Clinton and the 111th will have to do a third for Hilda Solis. But I wouldn't lose sleep if it were left off the list.DCmacnut<> 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked because Clinton fix is listed at 110th United States Congress. I'm not sure that Solis will need one because the emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of Labor have not been raised during her current term. -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right on a strict reading of the emoluments clause. I based my comment off the discussion of this issue on Solis' article and news reports that lump Solis in with Clinton and Salazar as needing this fix. Congress may yet pass such a law, even if not required to do so, in order to avoid even an appearence of a problem. Apparently, Judicial Watch is only complaining about Clinton, and I haven't heard a peep from them about Salazar/Solis. Will be interesting if they sue over them as well. The Clinton/Salazar laws do allow limited recourse to challenge the constitutionality of the appointments. This is the first time the Saxby fix has been required for more than one nominee, so if the lawsuits gain any traction it could be interesting.DCmacnut<> 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the Sexbie fix in the 110th Congress (nor the measure providing for counting the electorial votes) are notworthing either. (All sexbie fixes means is the people effected get less money than otherwise and the electorial votes are counted every time there is an election for President.) Jon (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The other reading would be unfair. It would mean that any person who was in Congress when the salary was raised for an office would be barred for life. Note that the Clinton fix covers the the period beginning at noon on January 3, 2007 (when Clinton's current term began) and the Salazar fix dates from noon January 3, 2005 (when Salazar's current term began). -Rrius (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But Congress isn't known for using logic in passing some bills. Could be that the media is getting hung up on the controversy and presumes it applies to everyone. It technically would apply to Ray LaHood as well if we took it at its broadest sense. The fact that a bill for Solis hasn't been introduced probably means one won't be pursued or needed.DCmacnut<> 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Double standard

Why is Burris listed as a member of the 100th Congress? I understand he was appointed last year, but everywhere else we list the date a member took the oath of office as the date he or she was seated. For example, we still list Biden’s and Salazar’s seats as vacant (even though their successors have been chosen) because their successors have note been sworn in. We should apply the same standard universally. – Zntrip 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing those seats listed as vacant? -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the party summary section. – Zntrip 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes in membership

Why was Obama's senate seat removed? He may have resigned before the 111th Senate began, but the seat was VACANT when the 111th Senate began on January 3rd and it now a senator has been seated. That sounds like a change to me. Also, if we remove Obama's Senate seat, then whey is Emuanel's House seat still listed? user:mnw2000

Burris' appointment was effective from the date of appointment, December 31, 2008, regardless of when he took the oath. So the seat was not vacant at the start of the 111th Congress. Emanuel's seat is still vacant because it has not been filled by special election yet.DCmacnut<> 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Colorado senate election should not be listed as a "special election" in 2010 because that is when the current term normally expires and the winner of that election will serve the regular 6-year term.71.53.223.30 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• There will be two elections for the same seat in November 2010. A special election to fill the seat for the remaining 2 months of the 111th Congress; and a general election for the seat in the 112th-114th Congresses.—Markles 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a change by DCGeist that had removed the many successive changes in membership. I apologize if this is not correct, but consensus seemed to have determined that this series of changes should be noted as it had been previously. Perhaps there was later discussion, or the revelation of new information, that I missed. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

mnw2000 is most certainly correct. The Illinois U.S. Senate seat (Class 3) was most certainly vacant from the date that Barack Obama resigned from it until the date Roland Burris was sworn in to replace him. It is an incontrovertible fact that Illinois was represented by only one U.S. senator during that intervening period. To pretend otherwise, you would—in order to be logically consistent—have to pretend that the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat (Class 2) has been occupied all this time...we just don't know by whom. That is, obviously, false, just as claiming that the Illinois seat was not vacant between then Senator Obama's resignation on November 16, 2008, and Senator Burris's swearing in on January 15, 2009, is false. The references by some of our fellow editors to 2 USC Sec. 36. Salaries of Senators are obviously misguided: salary eligibility is by no means equivalent to either de facto or de jure representation/voting power. To make it simple for our 2 USC 36–lovin' friends, just as you can continue to be paid for a job after you actually hold and perform it, you can be paid for a period before you actually hold and perform it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are completely missing the nuance here. Clearly only one Illinoisan was entitled to vote in the Senate from the time Obama resigned to the time Burris was sworn in. That is not the point. The point is a technical one about when a senator's term begins. No one is saying that this the same thing as ability to vote. What is being said is that entitlement to payment and term in office go hand-in-hand. Read [this article, where 2 USC Sec. 36 is explicitly used by the Senate as the basis for terms. -Rrius (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let's settle it on this talk page without an edit war, please. Using excessively strong language to make your case ("most certainly" "most certainly" "incontrovertable fact" "obiviously false" "obviously misguided" and "by no means") does not change the situation. Burris may not have been "sworn in," but he was the Senator from the time he was appointed. If he'd spent his first two months away on vacation, he still would have been Senator. If a kidnapper kept him in a locked prison an unable to exercise his voting power, he still would have been Senator.—Markles 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Markle's beat me to the vacation analogy. Until and unless the Senate states Burris' term of started on some other date, we go with Dec. 31. With respect to Minnesota, while there is only one senator currently, the 2nd seate is not formally "vacant" in the sense that the govenror can appoint a replacement. It is in the middle of an election dispute, and technically "occupied...we just don't know by whom." That's why "disputed" is used instead of vacant. Once a winner is affirmed, the Minnesota seat will be listed as filled from the start of this Congress, January 3, with an appropriate footnote explaining why it took so long to seat the senator.DCmacnut<> 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The official U.S. Senate website makes clear that Burris assumed the office in 2009, not 2008: U.S. Senators from Illinois. So this date of December 31, 2008, is definitively out. What date would you care to argue for now?—DCGeist (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then maybe he took the seat on January 3, 2009. Either way, settle it HERE, not in an edit war, please.—Markles 14:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This issue probably won't be definitively resolved until the Senate updates its comprehensive "list of senators", including seniority dates, etc. However, Official Biographical Directory of Congress currently states Burris was appointed December 31, 2008. However, it does go on to say that his credentials weren't in order until January 12 (the date the Secretary of State affirmed the credentials). That seems to indicate that January 12 may be a more appropriate date for his term starting. See Kirsten Gillibrand as an example. She was appointed January 23, but didn't resign her House seat until Jaunary 26. Therefore, her term started January 26 (the day she qualified for the Senate seat) rather than January 23. Given that Burris' credentials were ruled improper, technically he didn't "qualify" until they were in order on January 12, per the Secretary of the Senate. Therefore it is possible to be appointed to the Senate on one day, but not qualifying until later. This is related to legal qualifications, not taking of an oath. Legally, Gillibrand could not become a Senator while she was a sitting congresswoman. By extension, perhaps the case is that Burris' appointment was not deemed "legal" until his credentials deemed "in order." Therefore, I would have no objection to using January 12 as his term of office date, with the appropriate footnote derived from the Bioguide page. That may eliminate some of the current controversy, until we get a definitive statement from the Senate on whether it's Dec. 31 versus January 12 or some other date.DCmacnut<> 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Seems like a very reasonable course to me, subject, of course, to the official list once it's produced (do we know when that might be?). Although the Secretary has made mistakes in the past that Wikipedia editors have been made sure to point out :) Qqqqqq (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the relevant date was Dec. 31, then you must believe that (a) the U.S. Senators from Illinois is already in error and (b) Burris was a member of the 110th United States Congress. Is that the argument being made against listing Burris's assumption of office among the changes in membership since the present Congress began on January 3? As my friend Markles has said, don't get into an edit war before resolving those questions HERE.—DCGeist (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept that in this confusing situation the staffers who created that list got it wrong. The important thing in determining when his term began is whether he is being paid retroactive to December 31, 2009, not whether the list you linked to says "2008" or "2009". -Rrius (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious logical gap here. If Gillibrand, Kaufman, and Bennet were senators at anytime before their credentials were presented, then Burris was before his were presented and couldn't have stopped being a senator when his credentials were later rejected by the Secretary of the Senate at the behest of the Majority Leader, with no action taken by the Senate. Indeed, the Senate was never given the opportunity to pass judgment on the credentials as originally presented. The problem is that this case is unique. A small group of senators and officers of the Senate made assertions about the law and about Senate rules and precedents that simply were not accurate. In responding to the situation, it is important that we not formulate our own OR explanations for how to handle it. The best information we have is the combination of 2 USC Sec. 36, other instances where the Senate has explicitly turned to that statute to define when terms begin and end, and precedents gleaned from the Chronological List.

Unfortunately, we are just going to have to be very explicit about what we are listing and explain why there are differences in dates where necessary. After all, his term began on December 31, 2008, but he didn't take his seat (i.e., take the oath) until January 15, 2009. Infoboxes are a bit nettlesome because we use the words "Assumed office", which isn't very clear in referring to one date or the other. Since the past practice for appointed Senators has been to use appointment date, that is the date we should use unless we intend to change every appointed senator's beginning date. The voting strength table, though, should not show Burris until January 15, because he was not a vote until that date. In the end, the truth has created an annoying situation, and the only real solution is to be assiduous in pointing out why one date is being used in one place while another is used elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental point Rrius makes I entirely agree with: more information, not less, is the answer in a complex case such as this. The language of the Senate document Rrius adduces, THE TERM OF A SENATOR—When Does It Begin and End?, makes clear in the case of the Goodell Senatorial appointment that in cases where an appointee's credentials are in order [and, as Dcmacnut suggests in the case of Gillibrand, barring other legal impediment], the proper date for the beginning of the term is the date of appointment: "...he took only one oath of office but he served from September 10, 1968 (having taken the oath of office on September 12)." But note that this very document also makes clear the necessity of a proper certificate of appointment "in pursuance of the Constitution and the statutes of the United States". Thus Dcmacnut's point above is supported: January 12, when Burris's credentials were deemed in order, is per the presently available evidence a more supportable date than that of his appointment. That position is supported both by the available historical record and by the Senate website's current dating of Burris's term as beginning in 2009.

The voting strength table is a different matter. It seems to be clear both as a matter of law and fact that a Senator may not vote on any matter prior to being sworn in. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary to present?—DCGeist (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are completely misrepresenting the Godell case. It says nothing about date of appointment being predicated on the certificate being in order. It says,

"It should also be mentioned that on September 10, 1968, the governor of New York, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, appointed Mr. Charles E. Godell Senator from New York to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Robert F. Kennedy. This date being so close to the general election, no name was put on the ballot to fill that unexpired term ending January 3, 1971. Senator Godell served the remainder of the unexpired term on that appointment; hence he took the oath of office only once, but served from September 10, 1968 (having taken the oath of office on September 12) until January 3, 1971—two years and almost four months later.

"Note the following certificate of appointment presented to the Senate when Mr. Godell took his oath:

[Certificate of Appointment ommitted]

"The President pro tempore. If the senator will present himself at the desk, the oath of office will be administered to him.

Mr. Goddell, escorted by Mr. Javits, advanced to the Vice President's desk; the oath of office prescribed by law was administered to him by the President pro tempore; and he subscribed to the oath in the oath book."

The certificate of appointment I ommitted said he was appointed until the vacancy "is filled by election as provided by law". The whole point of the passage was that Goddell was appointed to serve only until a special election, but served to the end of the term. Your characterization to the contrary was flat dishonest. As to your other point, The Senate never said there was a problem with Burris's credentials. The Secretary of the Senate and Parliamentarian at the behest of the Majority Leader rejected the credentials. In any event, what ensued affected when he took his seat, which is not the same thing as beginning his term. Your point about the "Constitution and statutes of the United States" is just weird, because no one ever alleged that Burris's credentials violated either. Reid and Durbin made the specious argument that the credentials were deficient under Senate Rule II, which is neither the Constitution, nor a statute. Moreover, if you read Riddick's, there were times that the Senate accepted odd forms of credentials and even accepted the promise that the credentials were on their way in letting senators take the oath. The long and short of it is that when Burris was going around telling anyone who would listen that he was "the Junior Senator from Illinois", he was correct. -Rrius (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling "flat dishonest", little buddy. If you have a good reason not to assume good faith here, then spell it out. If you don't, then apologize for claiming that a different perspective and interpretation is "flat dishonesty".—DCGeist (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Little buddy"? Listen, you said the article said things it didn't. I quoted the entire passage on the Goddell appointment and it includes nothing of what you said. It was dishonest for you to say the credentials being in order had anything to do with that passage. Also, I called your statement dishonest, not you. If you can't tell the difference, you should avoid making dishonest statements. Moreover, you have been, at best, brushing up against the line of civility during this discussion and in similar discussions elsewhere. Please stop. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When you stop being a dick, Rrius, we can take your lectures on civility a little more seriously. When you accuse someone of having made a statement that is "flat dishonest," you are flatly accusing them of being dishonest. You know the English language well enough to know that. If you didn't intend to accuse me of being dishonest, you could simply have called my description of the case "inaccurate" or "mistaken". But you didn't do that. You called it "dishonest".

While you're drafting your apology, I will attempt to explain the point again, which you missed in your baseless presumption of dishonesty. The primary questions here are (1) When, in general, is an appointed senator's term of service officially said to begin? and (2) When, in specific, did Senator Burris's term of service officially begin? We have good-quality evidence that when a Senator is appointed and there happens to be no credentials problem or other legal impediment, as in the case of Goodell, that the Senator is said to "serve" from the date of appointment, whenever the oath is actually applied (the other matters of the Goodell case, which have got you so steamed, are not relevant to the present case). We also have good-quality evidence that the Senate regards the service of Burris—whose credentials are officially described as having not been in order until January 12—as beginning in 2009, not in 2008. Is that clear enough for you? How's that dishonesty detector doing?—DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for. You are just making stuff up. There is nothing in the Goddell case that has to do with credentials being in order. If anything, it stands for the proposition that a minor defect does not matter as his term did not end on election day in 1970. The only evidence you cite for you believe that the Goddell case and Burris case are distinguishable is your belief that they are distinguishable. Burris's page does not say the Senate rejected his credentials or considered them out of order. The Secretary of the Senate rejected them. The Secretary is not the Senate. The Senate acts by voting, and I defy you to show me where in the Congressional Record there was a vote to reject his credentials. CongBio is not an official source whose dictates are taken as gospel, nor is it neutral. The Senate Historian is an employee of the Secretary of the Senate, who rejected the credentials. In addition, the site contains more than a few errors. The sources I have provided are not colored by a party's interpretation of events and are uncontradicted by any neutral source. Until you decide to stop name calling, I'm not going to respond to any further posts of yours. -Rrius (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"The site contains more than a few errors"!! Oh, you tickle me, little buddy. And your ad hoc dismissal of the official actions of the Secretary of the Senate is not only risible but also one of two things—either "colored" by your "interpretation" of events or "flat dishonest". Which is it, sport? (Oh, and until you apologize for being a dick without provocation and assuming bad faith without basis, you'll continue to get called entirely well-earned new names. You want respect, start acting like an adult and own up to your misbehavior.)—DCGeist (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You said that a source made a given assertion. It didn't. That is dishonest. You presented something as a quote from a given passage that did not appear there; that is dishonest. If you can somehow explain that, I'll withdraw the accusation. Calling you out on that is not uncivil. Your dismissive nicknames and actual vulgar language is clearly uncivil and are part of pattern that predated my accusation and the source of that accusation. No one did anything to deserve the dismissive incivility of your opening salvo in this discussion, so you may want to rethink your lecturing. -Rrius (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying matters

The available evidence suggests that there are two different basic conditions under which an appointment to the U.S. Senate may be made that affect the dating of the initiation of the term of service of a given senator. In one condition, the most common, there is no legal impediment to the appointee receiving the oath of office as soon as is practicable. In such cases, the term of service is dated as beginning from the date of appointment. In the other condition, there is some legal impediment, which may vary: it might be that the appointee's credentials are found not to be in order, it might be that the appointee holds another governmental position that he or she may not hold simultaneously with being a senator. In such cases, the term of service is dated as beginning from the date of the elimination of the legal impediment. It may be easier to follow this in table form:

Appointment Status	Example(s)	Beginning of Term of Service dated from	Citation(s)
No legal impediment	Goodell, Kaufman, Bennet	Date of appointment	[2], [3], [4], [5]
Legal impediment (see types below)		Date legal impediment removed
a. Credentials not in order	Burris	Date credentials declared in order	[6], [7]
b. Holds other governmental office	Gillibrand	Date of resignation from other office	[8]

Note that in all cases, whether a Senator is elected or appointed, and under whatever status, the calculation of voting strength is not affected until that Senator is sworn in.—DCGeist (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will make another comment and then I think I will recuse myself from the balance of this debate. My previous statements regarding a "legal impediment" for Burris with respect to his credentials is based on my own original research interpretation of what the Bioguide page says, not some statement of fact on my part that this is indeed the case. Ultimately, the Senate will be the only arbiter of the date, and we don't know when a new document will be developed. So we are stuck with 2 dates, Dec. 31 and Jan 12. We all seem to agree that Jan. 15 has no bearing on the issue other than with respect to voting strength. I can see arguments in favor of both dates. Rius is correct that the credentials issue was not ruled on by the full Senate, but rather the Secretary and Parliamentarian at behest of the 2 leaders. Bioguide could be just trying to explain (as we would) why he took so long to take the oath. Moreover, Burris declared himself the junior Senator Dec 31, which is his appointment date, so that lends credence to that date. The legal standing of credentials does not rise to the same level of impediment as Gillibrand, though the are similar.

With respect to January 12, however, the Secretary and Parliamentarian as elected officers of the Senate hold more legal standing than mere employees. They have explicit authourity laid out in the rules of the Senate, one of which assigns the Secretary the task of determining validity of election and appointment certificates. So notwithstanding a vote in the Senate, the Secretary's determination does carry some legal (in terms of the Senate's rules) weight. But, as Rruis states, irregularities in certificates have routinely been waived in the past. So, we are back where we began. Until the Senate deems otherwise, we have two dates, and the one with the most standing (with respect to other appointed Senators) and backed up by reliable sources is Dec. 31. I proffered Jan. 12 as a compromise that appears to have generated it's own controversy. Any debate among us WP editors on which date to use is dangerously close to violating WP:OR, so my recommendation would be to either actively seek an answer from Senate officials or simply declare an impasse and a friendly cease fire until we have a source that gives us the answer. Just my two cents as a former Senate employee who wants to get this right.DCmacnut<> 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this is entirely reasonable. And there is no reason not to spell most of this out in the article, until we have some definitive ruling from the Senate. If we are spelling it all out, however, that does mean we discuss Burris in the context of a change of membership here, without implying a final determination. I must also point again to the official U.S. Senate website, which identifies Burris's "Dates of Service" as commencing in 2009. While far from a definitive ruling, it is highly relevant evidence. It suggests that January 12, 2009, may well be the correct date for the beginning of Burris's term of service; by the same token, it suggests that December 31, 2008, cannot be the correct date.

While we must avoid crystal-balling, we can indulge in a bit of limited, responsible speculation. Given the circumstances surrounding Burris's appointment and the response to it by the Democratic leadership in the Senate, we may say that it is very unlikely (though not, of course, impossible) that the Senate's ultimate ruling will be one that gives Burris seniority over all the senators sworn in for the first time on January 3, 2009. Again, another reason to include the facts of his case at the appropriate points in this article...because they are likely to remain most relevant here, and not in the 110th United States Congress article (where—guess what!—no one has even thought to enter his name).—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually does not give credence to January 12. They could well be going from January 15. Documents like that are not perfectly accurate. If you go back over the Chronological list, you will find several inconsistencies. Elected senators are listed as beginning service on the day they took the oath, i.e., January 6 for this Congress, except when they don't and just go with January 3. I've found a CongBio article that showed the incoming senator beginning his service before the old one left. The Burris article at CongBio initially screwed up the date of appointment despite the Historical Office's obvious access to the certificate of appointment and the Congressional Directory issue that reprinted the certificate. I have also seen the different biographical sketches treat similar circumstances differently where it was difficult to see why. Finally, I have found things like years of service in other offices held that were just wrong according to the relevant state's website. In the end, we need to be skeptical of the short documents put out by the Historical Office. In a situation where the answer is not easy, we can't assume "2009" is the result of considered, neutral, academic research.

Short of seeing a record saying Burris was paid back to December 31, we will probably never get a definitive ruling from the Senate. The seniority list is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure it's going to show Burris after Begich and before Kaufman. That is just a sign that the leadership decided to date his seniority from taking the oath, rather than putting him before the elected senators. There are multiple cases of seniority dates not matching service dates, so the seniority list won't be definitive on this issue.

We're just going to have to briefly explain why we are making the choices we're making.

As a side note, Gillibrand and Burris are not even remotely similar. Gillibrand was unable to be a senator because of her membership in the House. Burris was not allowed to take his seat because the governor who appointed him is a corrupt so-and-so. We should not forget that the credential issue was a pretext for keeping him out. -Rrius (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The points about maintaining skepticism about any particular source and the questionable motivations involved in the credential issue are both fair and well taken, but they do not go to the heart of the matter of our standards for verifiability. Documents such as the ones adduced here— like many of even the "high-quality" documents upon which Wikipedia relies—are indeed likely to not be "perfectly accurate", and it is certainly reasonable to surmise that "2009" is not the "result of considered, neutral, academic research", but they are what we have. And what we have right now suggests this: none of the sorts of sources we turn to in these matters is indicating that December 31, 2008, is the date in this case. The date could be January 12, 2009 (this seems to me the reading most consistent with how the language compares to the language used in other cases, more or less similar/dissimilar); it could, instead be January 15, 2009, or even January 3, 2009. In any event, even if one weighs precedent more heavily, we cannot reasonably assert that the change in membership definitely took place on December 31, 2008; we would certainly have a lot of trouble finding a mainstream news report that concurred with that. We can readily deal with this in a manner consistent with our best standards and practices: spell it all out, focus on facts (rather than interpretations and judgments, however reasonable), don't declare a "winner", cite everything. If that's essentially what you mean by "We're just going to have to briefly explain why we are making the choices we're making", then we agree.—DCGeist (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "change in membership" occurred on December 31 or January 15 depends on the context. Are you talking about the list of senators, the changes in party strength chart, or the changes in membership table at the bottom of the article? The first should note both dates, and the second should list January 15, and the last should say January 15 as long as the column is labeled as it is now: "Date of successor's taking seat".

Skepticism about the source doesn't have to do directly with WP:V, it has to do with WP:RS. If the source cannot be relied on, obviously it's usefulness in verifying a claim on Wikipedia is equally in question. -Rrius (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's a precedent at CongBio for a term starting at appointment despite a challenge to the appointment causing the senator to take the oath later. -Rrius (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all your points concerning "change in membership".

The Rosier case you cite, and the language CongBio uses, does seem highly relevant--despite the long delay in approving his credentials, his term is regarded as starting on the date of his appointment. As there do seem to be political factors involved in such determinations, I'll note that his appointment occurred ten days after the opening of the Congress in which he was ultimately seated; Burris's appointment, of course, took place three days before, and thus may be subject to different sorts of "interpretation" at levels well above us. Here, via the good services of Google Book Search, is an explanation of what was going on in the Rosier case: Two governors! Two appointees! Three commissions! Four oaths!—DCGeist (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I know I said I'd stay away, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. I agree that this whole debate all depends on context. However, I think we all agree that Burris was indeed "appointed" on December 31. Whether he "assumed office" that day or is having his seniority treated in another fashion is all semantics and philosophy. Like the proverbial tree in the woods, are you a Senator if you never actually serve in open session, participate in a debate, or cast a vote? Gladys Pyle (and the U.S. Senate) says so. Sure, she was elected in a special election rather than being appointed, but the fact remains she never took the oath of office and never served formally in the Senate since Congress was no longer in session. Yet she's counted among the list of South Dakota's senators. I'm encouraged that we seem to be slowly coming to some sort of agreement on what dates are appropriate as long as used in the proper context.DCmacnut<> 14:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bills from the 111th Congress

Would it be possible to make an article like this, or would it be deleted? Spinach Monster (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is an article containing solely a list of legislation would be rapidly deleted. On a related note, on the pending legislation, the red links either need to get real articles or if they aren't note worthy enough to be in any wikipedia article, then deleted. Jon (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Joncnunn. It would be AFD'd. I also agree on deleting redlinked articles. We have to have standards.—Markles 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• And yet, someone made it anyway: Acts of the 111th United States Congress. But it's only for acts, not bills.—Markles 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks like the entire contests of it should be merged into a new section of List of United States federal legislation about the 111st to start with (minus the items that don't have links to articles) with a link added to 111th United States Congress. That would make it like the rest of them. Jon (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Special elections

As stated above, in Illinois, Colorado, and New Hampshire, there will be two elections for the same seat in November 2010. A special election to fill the seat for the remaining 2 months of the 111th Congress; and a general election for the seat in the 112th-114th Congresses.—Markles 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Members subheadings

User:Rrius suggested we change the headings under "Members" from: "Senate" and "House of Representatives" to "Senators" and "Representatives". This is a big change and would have to be be done across the 112+ articles on the ordinal congresses. So I moved the discussion here to develop a consensus.

I would recommend keeping the first such references in every article as is, but the following references could be shortened. Also sounds like something that would be easier to program a bot to do than to manually change all those articles. Jon (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, having so many subsections called "Senate" and "House of Representatives" makes it kind of confusing to determine which section was recently edited, in the automatic tag added to edit summaries for edits made to specific subsections. Is there any easy fix for this issue? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• In that case the only harm is in knowing how the edit summary applies, right? I don't think there's an easy fix, but the harm is also small.—Markles

Well, that and wikilinking to a specific section of this article is hard, because, for example, 111th United States Congress#Senate goes to the first so-named section, unless there's a way to distinguish between them that I don't know about. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard on bills

It appears we need more clarification on how much a given article must deal with a bill to be included here. There are multiple bills that are / have been in the article whose major topic is related to a bill but touch upon one (or more). In alphabetical order:

• AIG bonus payments controversy#Tax on bonuses : 95% of the article on the AIG bonus payment controversity itself. One paragraph on the legislative response (A house passed bill to tax at 90%. If not already added there, the competing bill making it's way thru the Senate would be approatite there.) It's main claim to being noteworthy is the current firestorm in the US about the AIG bonuses. (Which BTW probably qualifies as a major event in the above section.)
• District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act : This is actually a redirect to District of Columbia Voting Rights. Most of the article deals with that in general but several paragraphs on various house bills from multiple sessions of congress. It's main claim for noteworhiness is that 110th Congress also links to it.
• Presidential Records Act Amendments : This is actually a redirect to the executive order by the previous president. Virtually the entire article dealing with the executive order and it's repeal by the current president. Only a couple of sentences dealing with a proposed bill by congress. It's main claim for being northworthy is the executive order (now replealed) was controversial in some circles.

Jon (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to include pending/failed bills at all, but I'm willing to keep them if enough editors want them and if we develop a standard for inclusion. I've been patrolling this article and I decided, on my own with no citation to WP policy, to include only bills that have a blue-linked article. A redirect isn't sufficient or a piped link either. That's why I deleted AIG bonus payments controversy#Tax on bonuses. But maybe we should include this after all. Future readers may remember that there was a failed bill to raise taxes to 90% on AIG bonuses. Why not associate that with the 111th Congress?—Markles 14:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of the three listed, I would rank the DC Voting Rights as most approatate; actually I could make a fairly good case for the section dealing with past and present bills to be split off into it's own article. I would rank the AIG bonus house bill as second, and the Presidential Records Act as least approate. Jon (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Party switches"

Should we have a section "Party switches", as a subsection under "Changes in membership"? When consensus emerges, the section on the page will either be restored or deleted. For now, it's in notation brackets "<!-- -->"

• I propose deleting it. It's sufficiently noted in the (so far) one case that it's happened in this Congress by: (1) noting it next to the member's name; and (2) creating a new line in the "party summary" section. It's been used in the 104th when Campbell switched, and 104th when Jeffords switched. Perhaps I just think it's too much info and not enough reason. —Markles 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree keep. This is a significant change in politics especially since the man has been a republican since the 60's also giving the Democrats a possible 60 in the senate if Franken is seated Gang14 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't deny its significance, but why have it as a section? It looks… barren. It's properly noted in the member's info and in the "Party Summary." —Markles 10:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why not simply add a line to the "Changes in Membership" section which currently deals with resignations. This same section could deal with party switches as well. For example:

Proposal A:

State (class)	Previous Office Holder	Reason for change/vacancy	Current Office Holder	Official Date of Change
Pennsylvania (class 3)	Arlen Spector (R)	Change of party affiliation from Republican to Democrat	Arlen Spector (D)	April 28, 2009

user:mnw2000 14:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• A good idea.—Markles 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I like it can we just have a change of color from the first arlen to the second one so red to blue Gang14 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • So I've shaded it (below), and slightly changed the headers.—Markles 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal B:

State (class)	Previous office holder	Reason for change	Current office holder	Date changed
…	…	…	…	…
New York (class 1)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Resigned January 21, 2009 to become Secretary of State. Her appointed successor will fill the seat until a special election in November 2010.	Kirsten Gillibrand (D)	January 27, 2009
Pennsylvania (class 3)	Arlen Spector (R)	Change of party affiliation from Republican to Democrat	Arlen Spector (D)	April 28, 2009

• Which leads to another problem: "Previous Office Holder" and "Current Office Holder" doesn't really make sense when the person never left office. Any suggestions???—Markles 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe "Previous" and "Subsequent" without other words?—Markles 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I can agree to those Gang14 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing House Inspector General

fwiw... from the Congressional Record, January 6, 2009, Page H24

The SPEAKER pro tempore.

Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule II, and the order of the House of today, the Chair announces that the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader jointly appoint Mr. James J. Cornell, Springfield, Virginia, to the position of Inspector General for the House of Representatives for the 111th Congress.

68.237.233.52 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, o anonymous one. —Markles 11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add two things (an editsemiprotected request)

Please add two things:

1. the appropropriate Category:Protection templates (small=yes) at the top of the article
2. Add the following line to the alphabetized list at 111th United States Congress#Pending or failed:

Healthy Americans Act

Thanks. 67.100.126.36 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Done Someone already added {{pp-semi|small=yes}}. Added HAA. Thanks. Celestra (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Senator hometowns in list?

When did the hometowns of senators get added. I do not think this adds anything and clutters the article (we don't list hometowns for Representatives). This is not part of the agreed upon format for the ordinal congress articles. Wanted to bring the issue here before removing the cities to see if I missed some sort of consensus agreement on the matter.DCmacnut<> 03:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I went and deleted these. They were added by a single editor without an edit summary, and I find no record of any prior discussion. Including them here merely duplicated information already provided at List of current United States Senators. Let's move the discussion here on whether or not they should be brought back, and, if so, in what form. My vote is against including them.DCmacnut<> 03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Against inclusion I agree with DCmacnut Gang14 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree (aka Against) Hometowns have no business here.—DCGeist (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Non-voting members"

Replace with Delegate members since they can and do vote on the cast majority of votes. Delegate_(United_States_Congress)#Expanding_voting_rights HawkShark (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Voting" is not what they get to do on final passage. Not all of them are titled "Delegates" (See Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico). If you can propose a better title, I'll support it. Until then, "non-voting" is the best we can do.—Markles 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How about Non-state Representation? Also, Markles "Current practice not only grants delegates votes in the standing committees, but also in the powerful conference committees" see House Rule III, 3[b] Looks like they really do get to vote.--- HawkShark (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They can't vote on the primary role of Congressmen: enactment of legislation. It's not that they aren't very important and that they don't have a role in the process. But this is the best summarizing title that could be produced by consensus.—Markles 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pending or Failed" or "Proposed" legislation

Can these be separated? As of now, it looks very confusing. I'd do it myself but I don't know if any major legislation has failed (as of now). Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The problem lies in defining the distinction. A bill can be tabled indefinitely and every knows it can't pass, but formally it hasn't been rejected.—Markles 11:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just changed my mind (oh, how fickle!). I'll change it to "proposed"—Markles 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vacant vs. disputed

I don't really want to argue semantics, but under the "Changes in membership" section the word "disputed" really should be replaced with the word "vacant" for the Minnesota Senate seat. That particular column lists the predecessor of the current member who holds that seat. To say that the predecessor was disputed is wrong, as the seat was vacant. – Zntrip 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Senate Historical Office, in its Chronological List of Senators states that the Minnesota seat was "vacant from January 3 to July 6." So from that standpoint, you are correct. However, we had this debate several times shortly after the 111th Congress convened, and it was agreed that we would list the seat as "disputed." It remained vacant because of the dispute, but wasn't vacant in the same sense that Obama's seat was vacant or any of the other seats where senators resigned were vacant. Vacant seats can be filled by appointment or by special election. Since someone had been elected to the seat, it technically wasn't vacant. Someone was senator, we just didn't know which someone until the litigation ended. I'm open to either description, but we need some way to distiguish this "vacancy" from the other true vacancies without relying too much on references. How about "Vacant due to election dispute."DCmacnut<> 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with DCmacnut's rationale and suggest using "Disputed".—Markles 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the "Reason for change" column sorts any ambiguity out. – Zntrip 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Member Ordering

I propose changing the way members are ordered as follows:

• Current Member (February 1, 2009 to present)

• Former Member (January 5, 2009 to February 1, 2009)

• Current Member

Why? Because as members are replaced, we should push their names down the list and put the current member on top. The current members should always be listed in the highest bullet. What do you think? user:mnw2000 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree for two reasons:
  1. All the other lists in this article are (rightly) ordered first-to-last and reversing it for this section would be inconsistent without better purpose.
  2. This article will no longer be "current" when this Congress ends (Jan. 3, 2011). It ought to list first member, then replacement(s) for the sake of the historical record.
• —Markles 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Markles. The ordering is meant to show the progression of members and related vacancies from the start of the congress to the end.DCmacnut<> 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Events Additions

1. I would consider Arlen Spector's defection from the Republican to the Democratic party a major event, insomuch that with his defection, the makeup of the senate body was near-filibuster-proof (Al Franken's confirmation made it official at the time)

2. Kennedy's death should be signified as to the impact of removing the filibuster-proof majority from the senate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.95 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree on both suggestions. Deaths and party changes don't need to be mentioned here unless it is a bigger event. The filibuster-proof supermajority started at Franken's beginning; that, if any event, might merit some mention in major events. However, as you note, that super majority was never invoked due to Kennedy's death. His replacement will probably be a Democrat, but let's not go on to speculation here.—Markles 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilson resolution

Is the H.Res. 744, which disapproved of Rep. Wilson's conduct during the President's address, significant enough to be listed under "Major resolutions"? -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it was sufficiently news-worthy, but it needs to avoid POV carefully. Include it in "Major resolutions." —Markles 12:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines, how about H.Res. 503, by which the House impeached Judge Samuel B. Kent? -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's already addressed in the "Hearings" and "Select committees" sections. That's enough. Articles about the judge or about the impeachment can cite the resolution and link to {{USBill}}.—Markles 12:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's definately not a major resolution. Resolutions of disapproval are the lightest form of punishment; and are roughly equivalent to someone waving a finger at a kid saying "naughty, naughty". Jon (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding graphics of party membership

Is it possible that an image such as could be used to show party divisions? I think it is a more accurate representation and closer fits the view of the Senate.WVnativeson 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Special Elections

A few senators have been appointed until the 2010 elections in November. A few have announced that they will not run for the office that they were appointed to. Therefore, there term end date is fixed. Since Senators elected in a Special Election take office immedately after certification rather than in January of the following year, should we list them as follows:

Massachusetts

• Ted Kennedy (D), until August 25, 2009
  • Paul G. Kirk (D), from Sep 24, 2009 until Nov 3rd, 2010
• John Kerry (D)

Illinois

• Dick Durbin (D)
• Disputed until January 15, 2009
  • Roland Burris (D), from Jan 15, 2009 until Nov 3rd, 2010

Colorado

• Mark Udall (D)
• Ken Salazar (D), until January 20, 2009
  • Michael Bennet (D), from Jan 21, 2009 until Nov 3, 2010

Wouldn't this make the article more accurate? user:mnw2000 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First, Kirk's term ends after the special election in January, when his successor will be seated. Second, I don't think adding the presumed end dates for the others makes the article more accurate. Wikipedia policy per WP:CRYSTAL is not to include future events in extreme detail, no matter how likely that event is to occur. For terms, we knew in January of 2005 that George Bush's term would would end January 20, 2009, but Wikipedia policy would not permit adding the end date until after it occurred. The same is true of senators or other elected officials who announce a resignation in advance. Even though that is the presumed end date, there are many (though unlikely) things that could occur that would cause the term to end sooner. Moreover, there will be two elections in November 2010 for Illinois and Colorado, a special election to finish the term ending January 3, 2011, and a general election for the 6-year term starting January 3, 2011. There is nothing to say that the winner of the special election is required to be seated or take office, and the terms of Burris and Bennet could continue until January 3 (though, again, unlikely). There's precedent for winners of special elections to delay taking office, allowing the appointed senator to serve. See Rebecca Felton[9].DCmacnut<> 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Dcmacnut's rationale for not changing. Furthermore, we don't know exactly when the certification will be. Also, we discuss the pending vacancies sufficiently in the "Changes in membership" section.—Markles 03:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)