[Lnc-business] Additional explanation of my ruling on Doug Craig

[Scott L.]

I don't think there is any ambiguity regarding whether or not Richard Burke,
an Elected Libertarian in Oregon, 

meets the stated criteria for being listed on the National LP web site as an
Elected Libertarian.

 

But let's pretend that the Chair thinks that that fact is actually
"ambiguous."

 

Given the words I made red below, will the Chair give the same benefit of
the doubt to Mr. Burke and the other 

Elected Libertarians who are still in public office in Oregon but are not
currently listed on the National LP's List of Elected Officials?

 

   Scott Lieberman



GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Sarwark
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 6:53 AM
To: lnc-business
Subject: [Lnc-business] Additional explanation of my ruling on Doug Craig

 

All,

 

I wanted to briefly comment again on my ruling regarding whether Mr.

Craig was a sustaining member under the Bylaws at the time of his

election to the LNC.  I don't know if it will persuade anyone to

change their vote on sustaining my ruling, but I hope it addresses

some of the points that have been made.

 

There have been a number of comments from LNC members about whether

purchasing a convention package "should" count toward a sustaining

membership, whether one should "expect" that buying a convention

package would count a s a membership contribution, and whether we

"ought to" count the purchase of a package toward sustaining

membership.

 

These are all valid opinions that ought to be referred to the bylaws

committee to resolve the ambiguity in the bylaws, but they are

somewhat beside the point of whether the bylaws clearly prohibit Mr.

Craig's purchase of a convention package from applying to sustaining

membership.

 

As I noted, there is nothing in the bylaws other than the phrase about

giving $25 in the prior 12 months as it relates to sustaining

membership, and the policy manual has no language that purports to add

any other limitations or qualifications on to sustaining membership

(as opposed to association levels, which convey other benefits).

 

In resolving ambiguous language in statutes, courts are often guided

by canons of statutory interpretation, one of which is the rule of

lenity.  In simple terms, when there is an ambiguity in a criminal

statute, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant.

This is not a criminal case, but the principle seems to apply that an

ambiguity in how the bylaws can be read should be resolved in favor of

the person who it would impact.

 

In philosophical debate, there is an idea of construing the other

person's argument in the best possible light, rather than assuming

negative intent.  Applying this principle to this ambiguous situation

would also lead me to the same ruling.

 

Lastly, for the baseball fans, there's the concept that the tie goes

to the runner.  If it's a toss-up whether he's safe as a sustaining

member or out, I'm going to call him safe.

 

If this persuades you and you have voted no on sustaining my ruling, I

would ask you to change your vote.  If it does not, thank you very

much for considering my arguments.

 

 

Yours in liberty,

Nick

 

P.S. To answer the other question, if the ballot is unresolved, Mr.

Craig is eligible to vote this evening at the electronic meeting.

That said, if everyone else has voted, I will vote on those ballots

prior to our meeting tonight to complete them and avoid any further

controversy.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150503/2814f723/attachment-0002.html>