[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Jul 10 07:54:19 EDT 2018
It is not up to US to accept the judgment, the JC is not there to protect
us but to protect membership. We are acting like the paternalistic
protector we hate the state being - we know what's best. Let us pick the
fox to guard the henhouse.
I don't care if a larger group of delegates is mailed - but it is the
DELEGATES who get to decide this, not us. And no majority can force anyone
to accept an illegitimate result. I do not accept the legitimacy of any JC
created in this manner. It violates the rights of the membership.
*What does the convention Parliamentarian think we should do? Has anyone
asked? *
I have.
And phone calls to states to ask them to alert their delegations will
alleviate any low response. It will take work. But it doesn't start us out
with a gross overstepping of our boundaries.
This isn't right folks.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Joe Bishop-Henchman <
joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
> 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.]
>
>
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
It is not up to US to accept the judgment, the JC is not there to
protect us but to protect membership. We are acting like the
paternalistic protector we hate the state being - we know what's best.
Let us pick the fox to guard the henhouse.
I don't care if a larger group of delegates is mailed - but it is the
DELEGATES who get to decide this, not us. And no majority can force
anyone to accept an illegitimate result. I do not accept the
legitimacy of any JC created in this manner. It violates the rights of
the membership.
What does the convention Parliamentarian think we should do? Has
anyone asked?
I have.
And phone calls to states to ask them to alert their delegations will
alleviate any low response. It will take work. But it doesn't start us
out with a gross overstepping of our boundaries.
This isn't right folks.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Joe Bishop-Henchman
<[1]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
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
<[2]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.]
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [3]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list