[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