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

[Alicia Mattson]

P.S.  In the hour since I sent this message, Robert has been able to find
and fix the query error that resulted in the deceased, non-life-member,
last-donated-in-2011 record being marked as a sustaining member...along
with 2 other similar records in the NV file.  The fix will correct all such
similar circumstances in all state data dumps, not just the NV file.  It's
the same process that's run on all the records.

One mystery solved!  As I get time to do so, I'll work with staff to figure
out the other things that look odd to me.

Thanks for the quick fix, Robert!

-Alicia



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mr. Benedict wrote:  "Robert Kraus and I interpreted the bylaws to mean
> that the convention registration counts as Sustaining membership. Obviously
> Alicia Mattson sees things differently."
>
> Except that wasn't the original conclusion.  I only know about this
> because I was initially contacted by Robert on the 16th with the news Mr.
> Craig had been lapsed but had renewed.  The question of whether the
> convention package purchase counts was brought up after that original
> message which told me that he had lapsed.
>
> Since there seemed to be confusion about how this question should be
> handled, I asked for a copy of the March monthly data dump from Georgia so
> I could see how other convention package purchasers were designated.  Other
> 2014 package purchasers from GA have made other contributions since then,
> so I didn't spot any other records that were exactly parallel to this
> question.
>
> Looking at the records, though, I found a number of other inconsistent
> data points such that I'm not confident that looking at our data dumps can
> answer the question of what has been the standard practice.  This is a
> separate issue that I expect to take up offline with staff to try to find
> whatever systemic causes there are and get to a resolution for the future.
>
> As quick examples of data issues I intend to follow up on, we have a
> policy which says specifically that convention package purchases do not
> extend benefits lapse dates or count toward association levels.  This
> policy was followed for some convention package purchasers, but others seem
> to have had their benefits lapse date extended when they purchased a
> convention package.  The Georgia file had people marked as sustaining
> members whose last gift dates spanned the range of March 2014 to April
> 2015, which is more than 12 months, and none of those are life members.  I
> also looked at the March data dump for Nevada.  I saw similar
> inconsistencies regarding whether a convention package extends the benefits
> lapse date.  The Nevada file had someone marked as a sustaining member who
> is not a life member, whose last gift date was in 2011, and is deceased.
>
> My conclusion is that even in several areas where staff and I agree on the
> application of the rule of sustaining membership or benefits lapse date
> (which are different things), the data records show those rules have not
> been consistently applied.  Thus the data files can't answer the question
> of what our past practice has been, because past practice has been
> inconsistent.
>
> Those questions arising from the data dumps don't have to be solved this
> week.
>
> We just need to immediately deal with the question of whether the
> convention package should count under the bylaw as written, regardless of
> how staff may or may not have interpreted it in the past.  Once the LNC
> decides how the rule is supposed to work, that should be the practice going
> forward.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>>  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
>> 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 5:25 AM, Alicia Mattson 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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150428/0efe9280/attachment-0002.html>