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

Tue Apr 28 08:33:26 EDT 2015

Can we first ask for a ruling from the Chair as to wether Mr. Craig's
purchase of a convention package does not count toward sustaining
membership?  Or is there set precedent for that circumstance.

If the Chair's ruling is that the convention package purchase does not meet
the membership requirement, then I would be please to co-sponsor the email
ballot.

Sam Goldstein
LNC At-Large Representative

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150428/28b722aa/attachment-0002.html>