[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

   Where this proposed approach would lead is two rival JCs, each claiming
   legitimacy. It would also cast doubt on the elections of Mr. Smith, Ms.
   Mattson, and Mr. Redpath.
   I'd actually be open to doing JC elections from a mail vote of all
   Party members - many orgs do so - but it sounds like a rigged game to
   only let some rump subset of delegates vote. If the election was
   invalid, everyone should get the right to vote in the new one. But bear
   in mind that mail response rates are lucky to break double digit
   percentages. It's not a silver bullet solution for our problem here.
   The pending motion is the least disruptive means of solving the
   immediate problem and allowing us to move forward. Voting no
   essentially saves in our pocket a future challenge to the JC's
   legitimacy if they do something we don't like, which would do way more
   to undermine the JC's watchdog function.
   I ask you to vote Yes on the pending motion, to make clear we will
   accept the judgment of the JC on any matter that may arise.
   JBH
   On Jul 9, 2018 11:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
   <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     So as far as the JC - which is something we CAN do something about
     as
     evidenced by this vote, I submit that this is the worst possible way
     to
     handle.
     First we don't have a crystal ball as to what delegates would have
     done.
     Perhaps they would have balked.  One thing we can know is the
     primary
     purposes of the JC - and that is to guard the Statement of
     Principles and
     hear appeals of our decisions.  In other words, they have a watchdog
     function over us and it is completely inappropriate for us to be
     involved
     in any way in the "acknowledging" or otherwise of this.  It will be
     an
     illegitimate JC that could open us up to legal issues - imagine if
     we had
     an illegitimate JC at the time of the Oregon controversies?
     So since there is no *clear bylaws compliant way to handle, how
     should we?*
     Well, it is to honor the fact that this is supposed to be a process
     in
     which the LNC has its hands off and the delegates have their hands
     on.  And
     there is only one way to do that, and that is to conduct a ballot
     (or
     ballots) of the credentialed delegates in attendance at the time of
     the
     election.  That is the only clean way.  Is it a pain in the ass?
     Yes.
     Will it cost some money?  Yes.  But it could save us much more and
     we would
     be going the extra mile to stick to the principles of avoiding any
     appearance of impropriety that should be our hallmark.  We are
     playing the
     some old political rubber stamp game right now.
     And I do have parliamentary support for this.  When there is an
     intractable
     issue such as this, General Robert on page 452 of *Parliamentary
     Law* in
     answer to Question 107 suggests, "complying, in making the change,
     with the
     spirit of the existing bylaws as nearly as possible."  *IN NO WAY
     DOES THIS
     VOTE ACCOMPLISH THAT.*
     Here is the citation from an analogous situation in which a society
     finds
     itself unable to amend its bylaws---
     # 107.  Ques:  The bylaws of a society provide that they may be
     amended by
     a three-fourths vote of the entire membership, notice having been
     given at
     the previous regular meeting.  These by-laws were adopted when the
     society
     was very small.  Since that time it has grown to more than 600
     members.  It
     is a necessity that the by-laws be amended to meet the requirements
     of such
     a large organization.  Repeated attempts have been made for two
     years to
     amend them, but it is impossible to get an attendance of three
     fourths of
     the entire membership.  What can be done about it?
     Answer:  Since the society has adopted a provision for amendment in
     its
     by-laws that it is impracticable to carry out, the only thing that
     can be
     done is to change that provision to a reasonable one, complying, in
     making
     the change, with the spirit of the existing by-laws as nearly as
     possible.  The
     makers of the by-laws did not foresee that the time would come when
     it
     would be impracticable to secure the attendance of three fourths of
     the
     membership at a meeting.  If notice of the amendment of this by-law
     is
     given as required by the by-laws, and it is adopted by a
     three-fourths vote
     of the members present, and then a mail vote is taken on the
     adoption of
     the amendment as described in R.O.R. (Robert’s Rules of Order
     Revised), pp.
     199,200, and three fourths of the votes cast are in favor of the
     amendment,
     the amendment is adopted by a method as nearly in the spirit of the
     by-laws
     as is practicable.  While voting by mail is not allowed by R.O.R.
     unless it
     is provided for in the by-laws, yet this rule must be broken in
     order to
     comply with the spirit of an unwise by-law.  In R.O.R., p. 270, the
     committee on by-laws is warned against similar provisions in
     by-laws.  [See
     Ques. 105.]