[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2

[Joshua Katz]

I rise (sit) in opposition to this motion.  With the previous motion having
been pretty decisively voted on, I think it's unnecessary to continue
wordsmithing, I don't think you'll ever get agreement, and that continuing
to press the issue will continue to take up this board's time.  Can we at
least agree that if this one fails, we're done?

(This raises another question I don't understand about email ballots.
 While this is not clearly out of order, what if 4 people cosponsored an
email ballot that was clearly out of order?  How could a point of order be
raised?  I question whether or not this is bringing substantially the same
business before the body - but, what is a session when it comes to email
ballots?  If we did prohibit bringing the same question before the body,
would that mean for 2 years, until any member has changed, until an actual
meeting has passed, for 3 months, or what?)

Now, as to why I find this more problematic than the previous one
presented:  First, the whereas clause that quotes from Robert's the
prohibition on changing a decision of the convention suggests, to me at
least, that passing this resolution is akin to making the statement that,
if we could, we would reverse that decision.  I do not recall the vote
totals, but many balloted votes were close - it's at least possible that
reversing that decision would have actual implications on the make-up of
the LNC.  And that wouldn't be fair for many reasons, not least because the
three seated delegates could have been seated elsewhere, so throwing out
their votes would discount this strong likelihood.  Anyway, even if RONR
said nothing on the subject, I would oppose reversing the decision, and I
see the inclusion of this phrase as suggesting otherwise.

My second objection is that this motion, before saying that some delegates
feel the wrong decision was reached, mentions the vote on the appeal.  The
motion by the Chair did not do so, and so did not challenge a decision of
the body, but only that of the ex-Chair.  This one directly points to an
action of the body.

I recognize that in many ways, this motion weakens the previous one, and
may be able to gain broader support.  It says less and does less, and so
may be less objectionable.  I recognize that it is an attempt to offer an
olive branch, and to gain broader consensus on doing so.  I appreciate the
effort taken in trying to make something happen on this issue.  I just
think that this body has already made a decision.  Further, if we continue
to make efforts to bring about an apology that was voted down, I do begin
to wonder if we are doing what we think is right, or if we are, in fact,
responding to blackmail.



Joshua A. Katz

Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
Libertarian National Committee

Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut


On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 29, 2014 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.*
>
> *Co-Sponsors:*  Dan Wiener, Vicki Kirkland, Tim Hagan, Guy McLendon
>
> *Motion:*
> Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a
> Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate
> party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and
>
> Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level
> affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws,
> determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article
> 6, 3), and
>
> Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of
> the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the
> National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and
>
> Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the
> Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the
> Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not
> describe the details of that dispute, and
>
> Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to
> include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and
>
> Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National
> Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s
> ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the
> assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and
>
> Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which
> is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in
> Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of
> the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of
> the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577,
> II. 23-33).”, and
>
> Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the
> situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly
> decided, therefore
>
> Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee
> that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
>
>
> Alicia Mattson
> LNC Secretary
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140720/7d44e93d/attachment-0002.html>