[Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members

[john.phillips at lp.org]

Thank mr Moulton for us.  It is a difficult situation, and his advice is well spoken.
John PhillipsLibertarian National Committee Region 6 RepresentativeCell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business Date: Fri, Jul 6, 2018 3:43 PMTo: Sam Goldstein;Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman;lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members
   Mr. Moulton, the chair of the old JC, has permitted me to forward this
   from him. I agree with his analysis of the problem and believe the
   proposed LNC motion would help make clear who the JC is.
   JBH
   Sam and Joe,

   I only speak for myself and not for the whole JC from the 2016-2018
   term.
   Because no one received a majority vote with approval voting, there is
   a
   controversy as to whether the Judicial Committee was properly elected.
   Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
   interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
   1. The convention elected all 7 JC members by plurality (the motion to
   suspend the rules for at-large applies to JC because our rules say the
   JC uses the same method of election as at-large).
   2. The convention elected 5 JC members by plurality (the motion
   referenced above explicitly said the top 5 would be elected by
   plurality)
   3. The JC from the previous term continues serving another 2 or 4 years
   (no one received a majority)
   4. The LNC can appoint the JC (the LNC can fill at-large vacancies, and
   our rules say the JC is elected by the same method as at-large)
   5. We have no JC (no one received a majority and our bylaws say the JC
   serves until the final adjournment of the next convention rather than
   when the next JC is elected)
   I can't do anything about interpretation #5.
   I am trying my best to at least make the interpretations in #1, #2, #3,
   and #4 be the same people so those with different interpretations don't
   think we have 4 different JCs.  I believe this will add to the
   legitimacy of the JC.
   To that end I have asked the previous term's JC to resign (except me,
   as
   I serve on both) and appoint the 6 new JC members to fill the vacancies
   created.  That makes the people under #3 the same as the people under
   #1.  6 of us (including me) have voted yes, and 5 have simultaneously
   submitted their resignations effective at the end of the vote.  One
   member of the old JC refuses to vote or resign because he thinks that
   interpretation is without merit.  He told me over the phone
   (repeatedly)
   "I am not on the JC."
   Once the new JC is constituted on the email list, I will offer a motion
   for the top 5 to fill 2 vacancies with the next 2 on the list.  That
   makes the people under #2 the same as the people under #1.
   The LNC's motion could be construed to make the people under #4 the
   same
   as under #1.
   Please feel free to forward this email to the LNC.  Anyone may email me
   at [1]chuck at moulton.org or call me at 215-768-6812 if you have any
   questions.
   Chuck Moulton
   Chair, 2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee

References

   1. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
-------------- next part --------------
   Thank mr Moulton for us.  It is a difficult situation, and his advice
   is well spoken.
   John Phillips
   Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
   Cell [1]217-412-5973

   ------ Original message------
   From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
   Date: Fri, Jul 6, 2018 3:43 PM
   To: Sam Goldstein;
   Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman[2];lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
   Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members
   Mr. Moulton, the chair of the old JC, has permitted me to forward this
   from him. I agree with his analysis of the problem and believe the
   proposed LNC motion would help make clear who the JC is.
   JBH
   Sam and Joe,

   I only speak for myself and not for the whole JC from the [3]2016-2018
   term.
   Because no one received a majority vote with approval voting, there is
   a
   controversy as to whether the Judicial Committee was properly elected.
   Without getting into details of the relative merits of each
   interpretation, I believe this is an exhaustive list:
   1. The convention elected all 7 JC members by plurality (the motion to
   suspend the rules for at-large applies to JC because our rules say the
   JC uses the same method of election as at-large).
   2. The convention elected 5 JC members by plurality (the motion
   referenced above explicitly said the top 5 would be elected by
   plurality)
   3. The JC from the previous term continues serving another 2 or 4 years
   (no one received a majority)
   4. The LNC can appoint the JC (the LNC can fill at-large vacancies, and
   our rules say the JC is elected by the same method as at-large)
   5. We have no JC (no one received a majority and our bylaws say the JC
   serves until the final adjournment of the next convention rather than
   when the next JC is elected)
   I can't do anything about interpretation #5.
   I am trying my best to at least make the interpretations in #1, #2, #3,
   and #4 be the same people so those with different interpretations don't
   think we have 4 different JCs.  I believe this will add to the
   legitimacy of the JC.
   To that end I have asked the previous term's JC to resign (except me,
   as
   I serve on both) and appoint the 6 new JC members to fill the vacancies
   created.  That makes the people under #3 the same as the people under
   #1.  6 of us (including me) have voted yes, and 5 have simultaneously
   submitted their resignations effective at the end of the vote.  One
   member of the old JC refuses to vote or resign because he thinks that
   interpretation is without merit.  He told me over the phone
   (repeatedly)
   "I am not on the JC."
   Once the new JC is constituted on the email list, I will offer a motion
   for the top 5 to fill 2 vacancies with the next 2 on the list.  That
   makes the people under #2 the same as the people under #1.
   The LNC's motion could be construed to make the people under #4 the
   same
   as under #1.
   Please feel free to forward this email to the LNC.  Anyone may email me
   at [1[4]]chuck at moulton.org or call me at [5]215-768-6812 if you have any
   questions.
   Chuck Moulton
   Chair, [6]2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee

References

   1. mailto[7]:chuck at moulton.org

References

   1. tel:217-412-5973
   2. mailto:;lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. tel:2016-2018
   4. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
   5. tel:215-768-6812
   6. tel:2016-2018
   7. mailto::chuck at moulton.org