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

Tue Apr 28 10:46:21 EDT 2015

Aaron Starr, in 2009 or 2010, was the first person to explain to me how 
"benefits lapse date" and "sustaining membership lapse date" are not the 
same thing.

You might check with him on this. I think he would tell you that it is 
NOT correct to say:
"Foundation Member = Sustaining Member"
"the expiration date of Association Levels is the same as the expiration 
date of Sustaining Memberships."

It's confusing as heck, I'll admit. Again, I did not design this system. 
I argued for more simplicity and clarity.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
*New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

On 4/28/2015 10:31 AM, Scott L. wrote:
>
> The Executive Director and the Operations Director have had PLENTY of 
> time to figure out the details of the new association levels.
>
> I admit that I have not become an “expert” on interpreting these 
> policies, because as an LNC Regional Alternate I don’t need to know 
> the details of how the Assoc. Levels are administered.
>
> However – it is REALLY, REALLY clear, even to me,  that
>
> Foundation Member = Sustaining Member
>
> IOW - the expiration date of Association Levels is the same as the 
> expiration date of Sustaining Memberships.
>
>
> I think the Executive Director is accidentally confusing the Benefits 
> Lapse Date with the expiration date of a sustaining membership.
>
> BTW – I agree that it was not wise for the LNC to use the term 
> “Foundation Member” when the term “Sustaining Member” is used in our 
> Bylaws.
>
>     Scott Lieberman
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Wes Benedict
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:18 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] requesting co-sponsors for expedited 
> email ballot
>
> The term "Sustaining Membership" is not in the section of the Policy 
> Manual describing Association Levels. The expiration date of 
> Association Levels is different from the expiration date of Sustaining 
> Membership. Again, I didn't design this system. I argued for more 
> simplicity.
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>
> GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>
>     Mr. Executive Director:
>
>     Does your e-mail below mean that you and the Operations Director
>     are disregarding the directive that I copied from the LP web site
>     about an hour ago?
>
>     https://www.lp.org/membership-levels
>
>     “Convention registration fees do not count towards association
>     levels.”
>
>     I have a capture of that web page in case the Chair, or anyone
>     else, wishes to examine the evidence.
>
>     Scott Lieberman
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>     Behalf Of *Wes Benedict
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:03 AM
>     *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] requesting co-sponsors for expedited
>     email ballot
>
>     Robert Kraus and I interpreted the bylaws to mean that the
>     convention registration counts as Sustaining membership. Obviously
>     Alicia Mattson sees things differently.
>
>     Sustaining membership is different from the benefits lapse date.
>     It is confusing.
>
>     I didn't design our complicated membership plan, but I did put
>     forth a genuine effort to explain it on page 15 of this LP News:
>
>
>     http://www.lp.org/files/lp_news/2014-4_LP_News.pdf
>
>
>     Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>
>     GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGg
>
>>     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/fa5048f8/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150428/fa5048f8/attachment-0002.jpe>