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

Tue Apr 28 10:50:52 EDT 2015

I agree with the Executive Director that the current system is not explained
very well in the Policy Manual.

It would probably be a good idea to offer additional explanation in the
Policy Manual that gives the correct definitions and interactions of the
Benefits Lapse Date, Foundation Member, and Sustaining Member.

    Scott Lieberman

  _____  

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Wes
Benedict
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:46 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] requesting co-sponsors for expedited email
ballot

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
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/20150428/0e0d4397/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150428/0e0d4397/attachment-0002.jpg>