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

[Daniel Wiener]

Regarding Nick's email below, I'll just re-post my own earlier comments.
This matter involves a gray area in our Bylaws, and as a member of the
Bylaws Committee I agree that we should attempt to clarify that provision.
 (Although there's no guarantee that the Convention will subsequently adopt
a clarifying proposal.)  Nonetheless, with or without a clarification, I
think the most logical interpretation of both the wording and intent is
that a purchase is distinct from a donation for membership purposes.

The current vote tally (not including alternate votes) is 4 in favor of
sustaining the ruling of the Chair and 9 opposed to sustaining it.  Hence
it is extremely likely that the Chair's ruling will ultimately be
overturned.  At the same time there is overwhelming support to appoint Doug
Craig to the LNC as an at-large member, with zero votes in opposition.  So
the best thing we can do is complete both email ballots before tonight's
electronic meeting and thereby put the matter to bed.

Dan Wiener


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>

Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM

Subject: Regarding the Doug Craig matter

To: "lnc-business at hq.lp.org" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>


I will co-sponsor both of Alicia's email ballots.


I had to take a few hours to mull over this question.  The Chair's ruling
is plausible but not ultimately persuasive for me.  If we set the precedent
that buying a convention package counts as sustaining membership dues,
where do we draw the line?  Logically, any transfer of funds to the LP in
excess of $25 would then have to similarly qualify.


Suppose someone who was briefly a member ten years ago (and hence signed
the pledge) should now decide to buy a T-shirt or some books from the LP
for more than $25.  Do we automatically categorize that person as a
sustaining member?  Even if that wasn't the person's intent, and indeed the
person had no knowledge or desire for that to happen?  Does this become an
additional burden on staff, to have to check up on every sale to see if it
has a membership impact?


I'm afraid that the Chair's ruling will just muddy the waters rather than
clear them up.  I much prefer a bright line standard which says that a
purchase is just a purchase, and a sustaining membership requires a $25
donation which specifically identifies it as being for that purpose.  I
think that is arguably more in line with both the literal wording (i.e.,
"given" refers to a gift rather than a purchase) and the underlying intent
of Bylaws Article 5.3.


All that being said, I will happily vote for Doug Craig to fill the LNC
vacancy, and thus resolve any question as to whether his vote should be
excluded on a technicality.  This is also an excellent opportunity for all
the LNC members to quickly vote on these email ballots, and thus conclude
them well before the normal 10-day deadline.  The LNC should be able to act
much quicker than it traditionally has, so let's prove we can do so!


Dan Wiener


On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> 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/e9008691/attachment-0002.html>