[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Here is my meager contribution on the JC appointment issue.  I think that
all of the discussion on approval voting etc is a symptom of the
problem.... not having enough time to conduct Party business.  If we were
able to go to additional rounds this would not be an issue.  I was
particularly distressed about the At Large elections for which several
candidates actively campaigned, and they were frankly short-changed.  I am
very grateful I was elected by my Region because I would have been quite
upset not to have had the proper voting and potentially lost a seat if I
ran for At-Large due their simply being no time to do this with the proper
gravity and time.  Like several other candidates, I ran an actual campaign
with actual expenses involved.  Thus, I believe in planning for the next
convention, this recurring problem (from what I understand) of Party
elections getting the short shrift needs to be very seriously dealt with.

About the JC, it is apparent that the Bylaws anticipate that a full JC is
elected at convention (the vacancy language is quite obviously meant to be
"in term"), and thus, while the black-letter interpretation seems to be
that we would functionally have no JC right now since there is no quorum in
order to appoint new members, this seems expressly against the intent, and
in theory, the LNC could make sure there is never a JC by making sure there
is never a proper election by running out the clock.  Thus while I am
uncomfortable with this situation, I would be more uncomfortable with no JC
which is frankly supposed to be a safeguard that the members have against
us.  How they appointed vacancies can be argued from here until next
Tuesday, the fact is if we allow, through the spirit if not the letter of
the Bylaws that they can do it, then how they do it is their business.
Like the autonomy of the affiliates, we really have no business in that
aspect of their affairs.... we should be "hands off" in other words it
seems to me.  If I were on the JC (not knowing the arguments made) I would
have done like we did, chosen the next ones in line.  But i am not, and was
not there.

In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone, I am bringing this up at the request of a member.that
> discussions on LNC business issues should be between the elected/appointed
> LNC members unless a specific allowance was made for committee members on
> specific issues.  The objection was Mr. Ludlow's participation in the JC
> discussion.  If I am misunderstanding anything, please correct me.... I am
> trying to do my duty to member requests and will make "new person" mistakes.
>
>
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative
> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> Washington)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "the approval voting method is problematic and should be scrapped"
>>
>> I don't believe this to be a true statement.  There are flaws to approval
>> voting.  There are flaws to traditional voting.  There are likely flaws to
>> all other methods in between.  Approval voting has been very successful in
>> Texas over the years, but then again we're fairly experienced with its
>> nuances at this point.
>>
>> There are numerous reasons that our process doesn't -- or really I should
>> say, didn't -- work.  Take the LNC vote for example.  There were 19 people
>> on stage.  They gave 1 minute speeches.  This happened while other chaos
>> was going on.  The names weren't even put on the screen until long after
>> the voting started.  I'm not in any way trying to assign fault or blame for
>> the limitations/practicalities of the situation we were in, not even a
>> little, but these factors factually DID contribute to the outcome.
>>
>> Many people didn't even know 5 names out of those 19, much less
>> necessarily agree with those 5 people if they did know them, so how could
>> we possibly expect a majority to be reached?
>>
>> The JC was even more problematic as I think many of the people on that
>> list are even less known to the general party (my logic only being that the
>> LNC is much more outward facing than the JC - the latter which is much more
>> behind the scenes).
>>
>> There are mechanisms in place for fixing this; we chose or perhaps even
>> choose not to use them.  Creating objective criteria for the candidates and
>> enforcing it is one suggestion.  Perhaps if not every person in the
>> audience could raise their hand and walk onto the stage we'd have a
>> different outcome.
>>
>> I understand these things are seen conspiratorially as mechanisms to
>> limit, restrict, and ultimately funnel a certain type of candidate, but I
>> strongly reject that premise.  At some point basic practicalities need to
>> be factored.  I believe that approaching this practically would yield a
>> much stronger process, not a weaker one on the often ridiculous claims that
>> "a person was excluded" because the criteria is "too hard" or whatever.
>> Plus, there are plenty of people sympathetic to that conspiracy that help
>> craft such rules.  Presumably they would ensure the limitations are not
>> "too great".  Not to mention that in the absence of such a thing, we still
>> find ourselves in a conspiracy situation whereby the JC just appointed 4
>> people they saw fit for the job - the body be damned.  And let's do call a
>> spade a spade, that's exactly what has happened.  Do those people have
>> special interests in the 4 they chose?  I doubt it, but surely some will
>> claim that (and I'm sure already have).
>>
>> So anyway, just like the suggestion from Caryn the other day to have
>> numbered ballots for regular voting (of which Texas did happen to have and
>> I strongly agree with her on), I think we're still just a little immature
>> with our approach.  Rather than one method outright being scrapped (a
>> method that was chosen by the body in 2014 I might add), we might consider
>> the practical limitations of what happens when ~50 people adorn the stage
>> for 12 positions with 400 people voting for them.  It seems pretty
>> mathematically intuitive from the start that it will fail.
>>
>> ~k
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:54 AM, <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That's as it may be Joshua, but it doesn't change the fact that this
>>> action amounts to a de facto transfer of power from the membership as
>>> represented by the delegates in convention to a smaller number of incumbent
>>> party leaders. As you and I have discussed before, the approval voting
>>> method is problematic and should be scrapped, but unless/until that
>>> happens, I think it should be implemented in the manner most conducive to
>>> bottom-up governance.
>>>
>>> Since we have no idea how delegates feel about individuals whose names
>>> did not appear on their ballots, it seems to me that means filling vacant
>>> positions from among those who sought the positions in the order in which
>>> they received the votes of delegates, except in cases where a candidate
>>> received fewer votes than None of the Above.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>                          ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                  RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>                         (415) 625-FREE
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joshua Katz
>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 11:48 AM
>>> To: Starchild , lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Fwd: Remaining Members of
>>> Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>>
>>> I disagree with these comments.  It is certainly true that we have no
>>> idea how the seated people would have fared at the convention.  It is also
>>> true, though, that we do know how the other candidates fared - they didn't
>>> receive a majority in an approval voting context.  I would agree with
>>> Starchild if we were using some system where the ability of a delegate to
>>> voice support for candidates is limited.  However, in approval voting, I
>>> see only two meanings to failing to vote for a person:  disapproval, and
>>> having no idea who the person is (or something similar).  People generally
>>> disapprove of putting people on about whom they know nothing, and so that's
>>> a sort of disapproval, too.
>>>
>>> It's true that there is a problem of active vs. passive bias here - I
>>> would prefer that we used disapproval voting, which also gives a more
>>> sensible meaning to later rounds of balloting.
>>>
>>> Similarly to Starchild, my remarks are not reflective of any political
>>> preference, as the next 4 highest vote-getters seem to me to be very
>>> qualified for the JC.
>>>
>>> By the way, I also don't agree with the implied statement that none of
>>> the non-majority candidates should be seated.  The bylaws are quite clear
>>> here, both in the case of the LNC and of the JC, in assigning the task in
>>> an open manner to the existing members.  The delegates stated that they
>>> wished for those people to exercise this power when they adopted the bylaws
>>> as they exist.  Those doing the appointing should consider the candidates
>>> who did not receive a majority, as well as anyone they think is qualified.
>>> If appointing non-majority candidates, though, they should not say they are
>>> honoring the will of the delegates, but rather should say "these are the
>>> people we have chosen," the same as they would in any other circumstance.
>>> When a vacancy exists outside of the convention, it is their choice and
>>> their responsibility, regardless of what mechanism they might choose to
>>> use.
>>>
>>> It is not the case, either, that there are any clear customs here.  The
>>> LNC used that process to seat at-large members on Monday, but did not use
>>> it to fill officer vacancies in past terms, for example.  Arguably, it
>>> would make more sense for officer vacancies because there is a limit to
>>> votes cast by each delegate.  I think it is rather contradictory, though,
>>> to claim that the will of the delegates is to seat people who were approved
>>> of by less than half of the delegates voting.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM, <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This approach of committees filling their own vacancies without regard
>>>> to convention delegates' preferences on the grounds that only a minority of
>>>> candidates for those vacancies received the affirmative approval of a
>>>> majority of delegates seems ill-advised to me. Failing to receive such
>>>> approval is clearly not the same thing as receiving the delegates' active
>>>> *disapproval*. Nor is there any guarantee that subsequently appointed
>>>> members of a committee would have received majority approval at convention.
>>>> It is possible that one or more individuals appointed in this case would
>>>> have received a lower approval percentage than the four next highest
>>>> vote-getters at the convention had they chosen to actively run for seats on
>>>> the Judicial Committee.
>>>>
>>>> *We seem to have a situation in which a majority of the candidates for
>>>> office receiving the most votes at convention are routinely not meeting the
>>>> 50% threshold required by "approval voting". Thus if the method employed by
>>>> the remaining members of the Judicial Committee in proposing to fill the
>>>> vacancies were to become standard practice, the result could be a
>>>> significant disenfranchisement our membership*. it raises the prospect
>>>> that an individual could have a better chance of getting onto a committee
>>>> by privately expressing his or her interest in serving to the existing
>>>> committee members, than by actually running for the position and seeking
>>>> the approval of convention delegates. I do not think LP members anticipated
>>>> or desired such an outcome when they were convinced to adopt approval
>>>> voting.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore urge the members of the Judicial Committee to reconsider
>>>> this decision, and appoint the next four highest vote-getters to the four
>>>> seats in question, as the LNC did in filling the majority of its vacancies
>>>> which were similarly unfilled as a result of m Indeed ost of the delegates'
>>>> choices not receiving more than 50% of the vote. My recommendation is not
>>>> based on any political favoritism toward those individuals – with whose
>>>> identities I am in any case not acquainted – or any animus toward Michael
>>>> Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham, all of whom strike me
>>>> as sound and well-qualified choices. I write strictly from the point of
>>>> view of upholding bottom-up, grassroots governance in the Libertarian Party.
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>                             ((( starchild )))
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>                           (415) 625-FREE
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
>>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 8:41 AM
>>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of
>>>> Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>>>
>>>> I have been asked by a member in my region to inquire:
>>>>
>>>> Can someone verify eligibility for the three elected and 4 appointed
>>>> members? Specifically, can the " All Judicial Committee members shall have
>>>> been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection."
>>>> portion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Brett C. Bittner
>>>>
>>>> brett at brettbittner.com
>>>> 404.492.6524
>>>>
>>>> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
>>>> liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alicia Mattson <secretary at lp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Forwarding a message by request.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Gary Johnson <sedition at aol.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:03 PM
>>>>> Subject: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>>>> To: secretary at lp.org, AliciaDearn at bellatrixlaw.com, chuck at moulton.org,
>>>>> scholar at constitutionpreservation.org, jabuttrick at gmail.com,
>>>>> whall at wnj.com, rob at roblatham.pro
>>>>> Cc: Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com>, Roger Roots <
>>>>> rogerroots at msn.com>, Michael Dixon <dixonconsultinginc at gmail.com>, M
>>>>> Carling <mcarling at gmail.com>, John Bowers <bojo3191 at aol.com>, Michael
>>>>> Kielsky <Michael at krazlaw.com>, mikeljane <mikeljane at gmail.com>,
>>>>> steven r Linnabary <linnabary51 at gmail.com>, Robert Jim Fulner <
>>>>> jim.fulner at member.fsf.org>, "Christopher R. Maden" <crism at maden.org>,
>>>>> Jeffrey Mortenson <jwmort at yahoo.com>, Thomas Robert Stevens <
>>>>> drtomstevens at aol.com>, Tom Lippman <tnlippman at juno.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alicia Mattson,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please post this message online on the LNC Business list:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only three
>>>>> received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016 national
>>>>> convention.
>>>>>
>>>>> The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the delegates,
>>>>> Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have communicated
>>>>> by email.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have ruled unanimously that, as the "remaining members" of the
>>>>> committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are less
>>>>> than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of filling
>>>>> the vacancies with the next four vote getters.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four
>>>>> individuals who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not
>>>>> "disapproved" of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies with
>>>>> Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alicia Dearn
>>>>> Gary Johnson
>>>>> Chuck Moulton
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ========================================================
>> Kevin Ludlow
>> 512-773-3968
>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative
> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> Washington)
>



-- 
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160604/00ba31a1/attachment-0002.html>