[Lnc-business] requesting co-sponsors for expedited email ballot

[Alicia Mattson]

Since I know that some humans have a tendency to stop reading an email if
it's more than two paragraphs long, let me point out that at the end of
this message I am requesting sponsors for an expedited email ballot.

Previously this term it has been necessary to deal with the reality that
LNC members are to be sustaining members of the Party.  In the previous
case, I raised a point of order because an at-large LNC member who had been
a sustaining member at the convention when he was elected had since allowed
his sustaining status to lapse.  At its December, 2014 meeting, the LNC
re-appointed that member to the seat after the sustaining status was
reinstated.

As the Secretary has specific duties related to credentialing questions and
determinations of sustaining membership counts, now it is my job to once
again raise a point of order regarding a member's status.

For convenience, I have copied the relevant bylaw provisions below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bylaws Article 5.3:

"Sustaining member” is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the
Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member.

Bylaws Article 5.6:

Only sustaining members shall be counted for delegate apportionment and
National Committee representation. Only sustaining members shall be
eligible to hold National Party office or be a candidate for President or
Vice-President.

Bylaws Article 8.4:

A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and
shall not be the candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During our 3/29/15 Phoenix meeting, Doug Craig was declared elected to the
at-large vacancy.  On 4/16/15, Robert Kraus informed me, Wes Benedict and
Nick Sarwark that Doug Craig had lapsed but that he had renewed on 4/16/15.

I asked for clarity on what date Mr. Craig had lapsed because it matters
procedurally whether the lapse occurred before or after the 3/29/15 meeting
in which the LNC elected him to the at-large vacancy.

Raiser's Edge records indicate that his last sustaining-level donation had
been on 7/26/13.  Since then the only transactions had been his purchase of
a convention package on 5/6/14, and then his sustaining-level renewal on
4/16/15.

I look at Bylaw Article 5.3 and see that a person must have "given" at
least $25 in the prior 12 months, or be a life member.  Since Mr. Craig is
not a life member, the question is whether he had given at least $25 in the
12 months prior to 3/29/15 when the LNC acted to fill the vacancy.  To me,
"giving" money is a very different thing from a purchase of goods/services
such as a convention package or a t-shirt, so I do not think that the
convention package qualifies towards sustaining membership.

My conclusion is that Mr. Craig's sustaining membership lapsed on 7/26/14
(one year after his 7/26/13 donation), and that it wasn't renewed until
4/16/15.  That would mean he was not a sustaining member on 3/29/15 when
the LNC took action regarding the vacancy.

Given my conclusion that he was not a sustaining member at the time, I
believe the motion adopted to name him to the at-large vacancy is null and
void because it violated the bylaws which require sustaining membership for
LNC members.

For convenient reference, relevant citations from Robert's Rules are below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RONR p. 430-431, 439 make it clear that in an election, members may only
vote for eligible nominees, thus votes cast for an ineligible person are
actually illegal votes.

RONR p. 445, regarding challenging an election, states:

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order.
The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described
on page 250, line 30 to page 251, line 2. If an election is disputed on the
ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions on page 349, lines
21–28, apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are
those that come within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9–23,
in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the
continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

    •    If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post
established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of
a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws...."

Here is the relevant portion of the cross-referenced passage on RONR p. 251:

"The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the
time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a
continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time
during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:

    a)    a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or
constitution) of the organization or assembly,

*[items (b) through (e) snipped for brevity]*

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any
action so taken is null and void.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My conclusion is that according to our rules, Mr. Craig's election was in
violation of the bylaws, thus that motion is null and void and we still
have an at-large vacancy.  Now that Mr. Craig has renewed his sustaining
membership, he is eligible to be properly elected to that vacancy.

We just need to proceed to act again to fill the vacancy.  I suspect that
the outcome of a second vote now will be the same as it was then, but we
should go through the process of doing it properly so as to remove any
cloud of doubt.  Making the effort to do it properly will show respect to
the rules, and it settles the question now so that it won't come up later
if a contentious vote is decided by a margin of Mr. Craig's vote.

At this time I'm raising a point of order that Mr. Craig's election on
3/29/15 is null and void because it violated the bylaw requirement that LNC
members must be sustaining members of the party.

Unfortunately, I am not bringing this up at the most ideal time.  My to-do
list following the Phoenix meeting was much larger than usual.  When this
was first brought to my attention, I didn't have the bandwidth to fully
process it immediately, and it just got added to my to-do list.  If the
chair or I had brought this matter to you earlier, we would have had more
breathing room to address this before our May 3 electronic meeting.

I was just thinking we could address it on May 3, but as I started writing
this message it occurred to me that the electronic meetings are special
meetings, so we can't add agenda items at the last minute.  We could
address a credentialing question of who is eligible to vote during the
meeting, but we couldn't add an agenda item for filling a vacancy.

There is still an option for the full LNC to address the issue before then,
though.  Mail ballots can end early *if all LNC members will promptly vote
or specifically abstain rather than waiting the full 10 days*.  With
cooperation from all of you, we can still finish an email ballot before May
3.

I spoke in favor of another candidate for this position, but I'm willing to
co-sponsor an email ballot so the LNC can have a chance to resolve the
matter before our May 3 meeting.

I'm asking that either the chair sponsor, or 3 other LNC members promptly
co-sponsor with me an email ballot to elect Doug Craig to the at-large
vacancy created by Evan McMahon's resignation.

-Alicia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150428/39a5e06e/attachment-0001.html>