[Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members

[Alicia Mattson]

The first thing to do here is read our existing bylaws relating to the
Judicial Committee.

Bylaw Article 8.1 says (in part), "The Judicial Committee shall take office
immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and
shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention."

I don't understand Mr. Moulton's analysis and current plan which, unless
I've misunderstood what he wrote, seems to say the JC members from the
prior term are still serving on that body with the capacity to resign and
fill vacancies.  It seems pretty clear from the bylaws that their terms
expired at the final adjournment of the convention on Tuesday afternoon.

-Alicia



On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    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 --------------
   The first thing to do here is read our existing bylaws relating to the
   Judicial Committee.
   Bylaw Article 8.1 says (in part), "The Judicial Committee shall take
   office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which
   elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular
   Convention."
   I don't understand Mr. Moulton's analysis and current plan which,
   unless I've misunderstood what he wrote, seems to say the JC members
   from the prior term are still serving on that body with the capacity to
   resign and fill vacancies.  It seems pretty clear from the bylaws that
   their terms expired at the final adjournment of the convention on
   Tuesday afternoon.
   -Alicia
   On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        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][2]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:[3]chuck at moulton.org

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
   3. mailto:chuck at moulton.org