[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Tim Hagan
tim.hagan at lp.org
Tue Feb 27 00:25:50 EST 2018
You may want to look at RONR, page 440, lines 3-17, particularly where
it mentions, "a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one
office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the
election specifically provide for such simultaneous election."
The sample Bylaws on p. 585 include, "No member shall hold more than one
office at a time".
Our Bylaws, Article 6, has "No offices shall be combined.", but this is
in the Article covering the four officers.
Don't know if these help, or confuses the answer.
---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2018-02-26 20:42, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear up
> any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
> First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking
> questions
> about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from
> many
> people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have
> thought
> of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee. If anyone
> wants
> the specifics of that, please write me. The situation is not
> exactly
> parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me to
> understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
> My first question:
> ==Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a
> regional rep for one state and an alternate for another? And what
> are
> they? Both? The “superior” position?==
> I asked about our Bylaws. Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
> situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the
> specific
> scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a regional
> rep
> for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
> Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a
> person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
> permitted. ==
> I would ask here then why has that never happened? It seems to me
> that
> the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent and
> defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be available
> if
> their primary is not present. Incoherent or absurd interpretations
> do
> not seem to me to be the intent of a rule. So, next convention,
> could
> I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7 alternate
> and
> on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick
> that,
> you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that? Is there
> not a presumption of sense of purpose?
> The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a present
> regional rep was appointed as Treasurer. It is my fault for not
> being
> clear I am referring to elections at convention. Can a regional
> representative run for Treasurer too? This actually is a very
> pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1 and
> an
> officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were
> crazy
> enough to do it. But am I wrong? Do I have that option? Can
> anyone
> really say that is what our Bylaws really meant? If so then our
> Bylaws
> need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
> interpretations result. Now I can think of a contrary argument -
> normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not.
> That
> is the commonsense approach. Joshua you seem to be arguing that if
> it
> isn't forbidden it is permitted. What is the justification for
> that?
> Does not context, intent, and history matter? I am not a conjoined
> twin. An officer has different and potentially conflicting
> responsibilities. When absurd output comes out of input, that is a
> clear clue the input is false. But here is a piece of contrary
> evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate people.
> So
> if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after it
> demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants your
> position weight Joshua. And if that is the case, our Bylaws have a
> huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead of
> declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both? I
> don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all
> what
> was ever intended. Theoretically then all of the Regionals could be
> one person? If not, why not? You can confine your answer to
> elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that was
> my
> intent.
> So to continue with my questions:
> ==Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
> theoretically
> could an at-large or regional also be an officer? Is that something
> our Bylaws intended to allow? ==
> Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
> concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term appointment
> historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged. But let's speak to
> that
> historical appointment. It happened, was it right? What was the
> justification? Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is
> indeed
> a precedent.
> That leads to the crux of my question:
> ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
> Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8 Alternate
> and
> that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that our
> Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
> alternate). There is an email ballot. When do I have to declare
> what
> capacity I am voting as? Before voting starts? At any time? Can I
> withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
> the
> other?
> Let's look at these various scenarios:
> Before Voting Starts
> If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense. It raises
> issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
> At any time? (and this is the most directly parallel to the
> situation
> on the Platform Committee)
> That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and the
> previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us
> guidance
> in both letter and spirit. The reason for that is a foundation of
> fairness and proper representation. In fact all of Robert's has
> that
> as a foundation. Protection of people and rights.
> The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have an
> inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
> have. How so?
> Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes. And if I
> like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
> gamble that they won't and amplify my preference. No one else can
> do
> that. It is patently absurd and unfair.
> Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote
> as
> the other? (this is also directly parallel to the question on the
> Platform Committee)
> What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and changes
> their vote to something I don't like. Can I then withdraw my vote
> as
> Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID
> VOTE???
> There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that
> answered.
> And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its
> head.
> And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got the
> Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made explicitly
> aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their use
> of
> their alternate?
> _________________________________________________
> Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for possible
> inequities in the system. Why does the maker of a motion get to
> speak
> first? Etc. But that is available to everyone similarly situated.
> That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
> parliamentary law is any different.
> I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
> accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their
> voting
> rights, and deprive an appointing body of its choice of
> representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
> I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect everyone.
> We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst possible
> speculations on motives.
> Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner. I would
> truly
> like to hear what you have to say. I have consulted early on with
> Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra details
> too
> as I have groked it more.
> As I see it there are two issues:
> 1. When must the hat be declared?
> 2. Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
> Thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and
> lead
> up to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
>
> I will be more clear a bit later.
>
> But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly
> said my reason for asking.
>
> There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has
> some points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
>
> And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my
> actual
> desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion. That was absolutely
> and utterly uncalled for.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> And Alicia that was unwarranted. Please do not impugn my motives or
> make this personal.
>
> Thank you.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz
> <[5]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how
> the
> vote
> is counted. Given that, I would conclude that the system the
> LNC
> used
> is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity
> they
> are
> voting.
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
> <[1][6]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be
> both,
> which leads me to conclude that it is permitted. However, the
> fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote,"
> not "one
> position, one vote." Hence, such a person could not vote
> twice.
> So,
> on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it
> will be
> counted only once. Should the rep for whom they are an
> alternate
> vote,
> that's clear anyway. Should that rep not vote, the point is
> that
> their
> vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the
> region
> they alternate for. I don't see that it matters,
> mathematically,
> which
> one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep
> votes,
> which
> is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
> As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate)
> this
> person
> is an LNC member, with all that entails. For example, they
> could
> not
> assert their alternate status and serve in a position not
> otherwise
> open to an LNC member.
> Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies. I have no
> idea if
> the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any
> ambiguity in
> which to resort to intent.
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2][7]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hypothetical question:
> Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person
> could be
> a
> regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?
> And
> what are
> they? Both? The “superior” position?
> If so, how would that work in an email vote?
> There are multiple practical issues.
> Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on
> platcomm
> and
> will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and
> opinions can
> lead to insights. How the LNC would hypothetically handle
> would
> be a
> helpful piece of information. The parallels are not exact
> but
> would
> give insight.
> Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
> theoretically
> could an at-large or regional also be an officer? Is that
> something
> our Bylaws intended to allow?
> Any and all insight appreciated.
> I would be more than happy to detail what issues of
> fundamental
> inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting
> in my
> first
> hypothetical.
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> (Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> Washington)
> - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
> References
> 1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 2. [4][8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[9]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:[10]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 4. [12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 7. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 10. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list