[Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members
Joe Bishop-Henchman
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
Sat Jul 7 08:56:42 EDT 2018
I would like to correct the mischaracterization that this proposal is
in conflict with the JC.
Mr. Moulton laid out his actions to prevent multiple JCs and
specifically said this type of resolution from the LNC would help this
effort.
Mr. Dehn also makes a good case for this type of resolution as
demonstrating that we accept the legitimacy of this JC.
On Jul 7, 2018 7:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Before I start this email ballot, I need a clarification from the
co-sponsors.
In light of Mr. Moulton's announcement of the JC's decision to
appoint
members other than the top 7 is this motion still co-sponsored?
This would
put us in conflict with the JC.
Please let me know.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> It seems clear to me that whatever we do is a kludge. But it also
seems
> clear to me that since the JC is the watchdog for the Party, that
the foxes
> shouldn't decide who guards the henhouse and we defer to their
kludge.
>
> We probably haven't had a valid JC since 2016 in the first place.
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> 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*
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
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*
Before I start this email ballot, I need a clarification from the
co-sponsors.
In light of Mr. Moulton's announcement of the JC's decision to
appoint
members other than the top 7 is this motion still co-sponsored?
This
would put us in conflict with the JC.
Please let me know.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
It seems clear to me that whatever we do is a kludge. But it
also
seems clear to me that since the JC is the watchdog for the
Party, that
the foxes shouldn't decide who guards the henhouse and we defer
to
their kludge.
We probably haven't had a valid JC since 2016 in the first place.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
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][3]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][4]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][5]chuck at moulton.org
References
1. mailto:[6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[7]chuck at moulton.org
3. mailto:[8]chuck at moulton.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
- [9]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [10]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
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
- [11]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [12]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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
5. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
8. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
9. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
10. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
11. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list