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

[Ron Windeler]

Although I am only an alternate, I would like to express my opinion by voting to sustain the ruling of the chair.
 
Ron Windeler
rowindeler at aol.com

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
To: lnc-business <lnc-business at lp.org>
Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 6:53 am
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.

_______________________________________________
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/20150503/71e9f74e/attachment-0005.html>