[Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members

john.phillips at lp.org john.phillips at lp.org
Sat Jul 7 11:08:46 EDT 2018


Just to be clear, I have not seen a vote call on your motion yet. So we are only voting on 1 at this time unless I missed it. Though I do believe if I read the info correctly that you did have enough sponsors to call a vote.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business Date: Sat, Jul 7, 2018 10:03 AMTo: lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members
   I want to try to clear up any confusion about why this is necessary.
   Briefly it's us giving the JC legitimacy and demonstrating we aren't
   going to try to set up some rival JC in the future.
   We're currently voting on two measures. One is to change the date of
   our next meeting to Sept. 29-30, still in Phoenix. The other is my
   proposal to acknowledge the seating of the 7 Judicial Committee
   members. Bear with me.
   I'm not really sure why we do vote-for-as-many-as-you-want
   majority-required multi-round approval voting -- if it's approval, why
   multiple rounds? If it's about minorities being represented, why the
   majority requirement? How does it make sense to not approve someone one
   round and then approve them the next if you have unlimited votes? --
   but we do and the result was that exactly zero of the many JC
   candidates failed to get a majority in the balloting. Mr. Robinson, a
   founder of the Party, got 41% approval, Mr. Moulton, the outgoing JC
   chair got 38%, and so on.
   So what do we do. The LNC is not empowered to fill the vacancies; the
   JC members fill their own vacancies. The JC term ends at the
   adjournment of the Convention, which has happened. There are five
   possible outcomes:
   1. The top 7 JC vote getters were elected because the Convention
   adopted that rule for the At-Large election, and Rule 9 directs that JC
   elections be conducted the same as At-Large elections.
   2. The top 5 JC vote getters were elected - same reason but only 5
   because that was the number mentioned in the Convention motion.
   3. The old JC continues serving because no one new was elected and
   because it is not disestablished.
   4. LNC can appoint JC members to vacancies because the Rule 9 directs
   that JC elections be conducted the same as At-Large elections, and the
   LNC can fill At-Large vacancies.
   5. No one was validly elected so the JC sits vacant for its current
   term.
   Simultaneous action by the old JC, top 7, and LNC can work together to
   at least make sure the interpretations in 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the same
   people. The old JC appoints the new JC and resigns. The new JC appoints
   the top 7 to fill vacancies. The LNC acts to acknowledge the election
   of the top 7. So while we may not know which interpretation is correct,
   all roads lead to the same 7.
   I'm going to be honest - I'd rather have some other candidates I voted
   for on the JC instead of some of the ones who won. But I'm not going to
   play politics with this. Accepting the top seven and focusing on fixing
   the problem for next time is the right approach. The alternative is
   multiple JCs or no JC.
   So I have moved that motion in the LNC, to acknowledge the top 7 as the
   JC. Several of you have co-sponsored it and I thank you. I hope it
   passes. And I hope we will make it a priority that this gap in the
   Bylaws is fixed and we revisit our election method before next time.

   On Jul 7, 2018 8:56 AM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
    wrote:

   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
    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
     
     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 
     > Communications Director, 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) -
     Caryn.Ann.
     Harlos at LP.org 
     Communications Director, 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*

        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/
-------------- next part --------------
   Just to be clear, I have not seen a vote call on your motion yet. So we
   are only voting on 1 at this time unless I missed it. Though I do
   believe if I read the info correctly that you did have enough sponsors
   to call a vote.
   John Phillips
   Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
   Cell [1]217-412-5973

   ------ Original message------
   From: Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
   Date: Sat, Jul 7, 2018 10:03 AM
   To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
   Cc: Joe Bishop-Henchman;
   Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Acknowledging election of JC members
   I want to try to clear up any confusion about why this is necessary.
   Briefly it's us giving the JC legitimacy and demonstrating we aren't
   going to try to set up some rival JC in the future.
   We're currently voting on two measures. One is to change the date of
   our next meeting to Sept. 29-30, still in Phoenix. The other is my
   proposal to acknowledge the seating of the 7 Judicial Committee
   members. Bear with me.
   I'm not really sure why we do vote-for-as-many-as-you-want
   majority-required multi-round approval voting -- if it's approval, why
   multiple rounds? If it's about minorities being represented, why the
   majority requirement? How does it make sense to not approve someone one
   round and then approve them the next if you have unlimited votes? --
   but we do and the result was that exactly zero of the many JC
   candidates failed to get a majority in the balloting. Mr. Robinson, a
   founder of the Party, got 41% approval, Mr. Moulton, the outgoing JC
   chair got 38%, and so on.
   So what do we do. The LNC is not empowered to fill the vacancies; the
   JC members fill their own vacancies. The JC term ends at the
   adjournment of the Convention, which has happened. There are five
   possible outcomes:
   1. The top 7 JC vote getters were elected because the Convention
   adopted that rule for the At-Large election, and Rule 9 directs that JC
   elections be conducted the same as At-Large elections.
   2. The top 5 JC vote getters were elected - same reason but only 5
   because that was the number mentioned in the Convention motion.
   3. The old JC continues serving because no one new was elected and
   because it is not disestablished.
   4. LNC can appoint JC members to vacancies because the Rule 9 directs
   that JC elections be conducted the same as At-Large elections, and the
   LNC can fill At-Large vacancies.
   5. No one was validly elected so the JC sits vacant for its current
   term.
   Simultaneous action by the old JC, top 7, and LNC can work together to
   at least make sure the interpretations in 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the same
   people. The old JC appoints the new JC and resigns. The new JC appoints
   the top 7 to fill vacancies. The LNC acts to acknowledge the election
   of the top 7. So while we may not know which interpretation is correct,
   all roads lead to the same 7.
   I'm going to be honest - I'd rather have some other candidates I voted
   for on the JC instead of some of the ones who won. But I'm not going to
   play politics with this. Accepting the top seven and focusing on fixing
   the problem for next time is the right approach. The alternative is
   multiple JCs or no JC.
   So I have moved that motion in the LNC, to acknowledge the top 7 as the
   JC. Several of you have co-sponsored it and I thank you. I hope it
   passes. And I hope we will make it a priority that this gap in the
   Bylaws is fixed and we revisit our election method before next time.

   On Jul 7, 2018 8:56 AM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
    wrote:

   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
    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

     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 <
     >[3] 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[4]]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
     >>      [5]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[6]]chuck at moulton.org or call me at [7]215-768-6812 if
     you have
     >>      any
     >>         questions.
     >>         Chuck Moulton
     >>         Chair, [8]2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee
     >>      References
     >>         1. mailto:[3[9]]chuck at moulton.org
     >>
     >> References
     >>
     >>    1. mailto[10]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     >>    2. mailto[11]:chuck at moulton.org
     >>    3. mailto[12]:chuck at moulton.org
     >>
     >
     >
     >
     > --
     > --
     > *In Liberty,*
     > *Caryn Ann Harlos*
     > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
     Arizona,
     > Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
     [13]Caryn.Ann.
     >[14] Harlos at LP.org
     > Communications Director, 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) -
     [15]Caryn.Ann.
    [16] Harlos at LP.org
     Communications Director, 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*

        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[17]]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[18]]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[19]]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
             [20]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[21]]chuck at moulton.org or call me at
     [22]215-768-6812 if
          you have
               any
                  questions.
                  Chuck Moulton
                  Chair, [23]2016-2018 LP Judicial Committee
               References
                  1. mailto:[3][5[24]]chuck at moulton.org
          References
             1. mailto:[6[25]]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
             2. mailto:[7[26]]chuck at moulton.org
             3. mailto:[8[27]]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][28]Caryn.Ann.[29] 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][30]Caryn.Ann.[31] 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[32]:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto[33]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        3. mailto[34]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        4. mailto[35]:chuck at moulton.org
        5. mailto[36]:chuck at moulton.org
        6. mailto[37]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        7. mailto[38]:chuck at moulton.org
        8. mailto[39]:chuck at moulton.org
        9. mailto[40]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       10. [41]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       11. mailto[42]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       12. [43]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. tel:217-412-5973
   2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   3. mailto: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   5. tel:2016-2018
   6. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
   7. tel:215-768-6812
   8. tel:2016-2018
   9. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  10. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  11. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  12. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  13. http://Caryn.An/
  14. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  15. http://Caryn.An/
  16. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  17. mailto:]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  18. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  19. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  20. tel:2016-2018
  21. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  22. tel:215-768-6812
  23. tel:2016-2018
  24. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  25. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  26. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  27. mailto:]chuck at moulton.org
  28. http://Caryn.An/
  29. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  30. http://Caryn.An/
  31. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
  32. mailto::caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  33. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  34. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  35. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  36. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  37. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  38. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  39. mailto::chuck at moulton.org
  40. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  41. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  42. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  43. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list