[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
john.phillips at lp.org
john.phillips at lp.org
Tue Jul 10 12:25:53 EDT 2018
I have reached out repeatedly to my region and the overwhelming majority want it handled and moved on with so far. I even forwarded them Caryn Ann's objections posted on steemit and FB this morning so that they got both sides.
Everyone shares our unhappiness with it getting to this point, but no one so far has objected to us acknowledging the votes of the delegates.
A very few do object to the procedure used for At Large, but as that was the procedure voted on by the delegates, led or not (a characterization I vehemently object to), that appears to be a moot point other than, again fixing it so it does not happen again.
If I receive a sudden influx of objections from my region after reaching out again, I have informed them I would change my vote and follow their will. So far I have not received a single request to do so.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973
------ Original message------From: Craig Bowden via Lnc-business Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2018 10:49 AMTo: lnc-business at hq.lp.org;Cc: Craig Bowden;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
I feel I do need to relay some of the information I received in
communicating with Region 1 Chairs.
While currently in the minority opinion:
"I believe that we should not have the LNC decide the election results
or the procedure."
This is concerning for me, because if the JC is seen as illegitimate, we
could possibly see states break off. That is my biggest worry with this.
While I know I voted yes before Richard came back online, as that was
the will of the majority states who responded, I feel an obligation to
also raise voice to the minority opinion so all states are being heard.
A second state in Region 1 is concerned about legitimacy of the JC.
Worst case scenario: because they may view our actions as illegitimate,
they withhold their ballot access and nominate someone else in 2020 for
the top ticket. That is a real possibility. If a state feels we are in
the wrong, this could happen. It is something we need to consider.
Best case scenario: nothing happens and we make sure we do not repeat
the process.
The safest measure, while being more of a pain, would be to ask the
delegates. I am more than willing to contact Region 1 states to maximize
the possibility of a good return on ballots.
Respectfully,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate
On 2018-07-10 05:54, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
I have reached out repeatedly to my region and the overwhelming
majority want it handled and moved on with so far. I even forwarded
them Caryn Ann's objections posted on steemit and FB this morning so
that they got both sides.
Everyone shares our unhappiness with it getting to this point, but no
one so far has objected to us acknowledging the votes of the
delegates.
A very few do object to the procedure used for At Large, but as that
was the procedure voted on by the delegates, led or not (a
characterization I vehemently object to), that appears to be a moot
point other than, again fixing it so it does not happen again.
If I receive a sudden influx of objections from my region after
reaching out again, I have informed them I would change my vote and
follow their will. So far I have not received a single request to do
so.
John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell [1]217-412-5973
------ Original message------
From: Craig Bowden via Lnc-business
Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2018 10:49 AM
To: [2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org;
Cc: Craig Bowden;
Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION
OF JC
I feel I do need to relay some of the information I received in
communicating with Region 1 Chairs.
While currently in the minority opinion:
"I believe that we should not have the LNC decide the election results
or the procedure."
This is concerning for me, because if the JC is seen as illegitimate, we
could possibly see states break off. That is my biggest worry with this.
While I know I voted yes before Richard came back online, as that was
the will of the majority states who responded, I feel an obligation to
also raise voice to the minority opinion so all states are being heard.
A second state in Region 1 is concerned about legitimacy of the JC.
Worst case scenario: because they may view our actions as illegitimate,
they withhold their ballot access and nominate someone else in 2020 for
the top ticket. That is a real possibility. If a state feels we are in
the wrong, this could happen. It is something we need to consider.
Best case scenario: nothing happens and we make sure we do not repeat
the process.
The safest measure, while being more of a pain, would be to ask the
delegates. I am more than willing to contact Region 1 states to maximize
the possibility of a good return on ballots.
Respectfully,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate
On [3]2018-07-10 05:54, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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[4]]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[5]]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][6]Caryn.Ann.[7] Harlos at LP.org or[8] Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -[9] 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[10]:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> 2. mailto[11]:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto[12]:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. tel:217-412-5973
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. tel:2018-07-10 05
4. mailto:]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
5. mailto:]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. http://Caryn.An/
7. mailto: Harlos at LP.org
8. mailto: Secretary at LP.org.
9. mailto: LPedia at LP.org
10. mailto::joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
11. mailto::lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. mailto::Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list