[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sat Jul 14 00:41:22 EDT 2018
I vote no.
I have respect for the co-sponsors, and I know they mean well, however I
cannot agree with this approach.
I realize that I'm making my argument late in the voting cycle, and my
chances of flipping votes may be slim because of the
already-invested-in-my-vote factor, but I just didn't have the time to
write this until now.
This motion violates our rules, and my vote is not because I think we
should instead address the situation in some other way which also violates
the rules. No Judicial Committee was elected by the convention. This
motion effectively represents the LNC electing the Judicial Committee,
contrary to our bylaws which only allow the convention to elect the
Judicial Committee. If this motion passes, it should be appealed to the
Judicial Committee, except that we don't have one.
With 21 candidates for 7 seats, the average delegate voted for only 5.27
candidates, so it's not surprising that no one received a majority. There
are potential consequences to strategic under-voting.
The LNC does not make the bylaws, but it must operate within them. Our
votes here must not be on the basis of what we wish the rule were instead,
but rather on what the existing rule is.
What is the rule? Bylaws Article 8.1 clearly lays out that the Judicial
Committee is elected by the convention. RONR principle of interpretation
#4 (spanning pages 589-590) clearly says that when the bylaws "authorize
certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby
prohibited." That means the LNC can't elect the Judicial Committee because
the bylaws give that duty only to the convention. This bylaw clearly says
the term of the prior Judicial Committee has ended.
Convention Rule 8 delineates how LNC members are elected, and the procedure
for at-large requires majority vote for election. Convention Rule 9
says, "Nominations
and elections for members of the Judicial Committee shall be conducted in
the same manner as specified for at-large members of the National Committee.
Some are taking the approach of, "I represent constituency X, so I'll vote
how they want me to vote", however all of our positions and these
constituencies exist within a framework of rules given to us by the
constituency of the convention delegates. Some members of Congress have
constituencies who want to ban all firearms, but because of the Second
Amendment, it's unlawful to do that.
Mr. Moulton wrote up an analysis that listed 5 different theories about how
this should be handled, but it failed to address how all but one of those
theories violates our rules. Instead it spoke in terms of which one we
dislike the least. I particularly don't understand the talk about the
members from the prior Judicial Committee term "resigning" from positions
they no longer hold, appointing replacements though since their term has
ended they no longer have power to fill vacancies, voting on some
unspecified motion as though they hold a position entitled to a vote, etc.
I have comments about the manner in which the at-large race was handled,
but that's a different thread. Regardless, the convention took a
clearly-defined action to specify the at-large winners as being the top-5
finishers.
The convention did not do so with the Judicial Committee, which leaves us
to operate within the confines of the existing rules. Since none received
a majority vote, none were elected, just as would have been the case with
at-large had the delegates not taken action on that subject.
One theory being floated is that Convention Rule 9 says Judicial Committee
uses the same procedure as at-large, so either the top-5 or the top-x
finishers are elected by plurality. Look at the rule again. It doesn't
say whatever procedure the rules are suspended to be for At-Large. It says
the JC uses the same procedure "as specified" for at-large. This is
essentially an incorporation by reference of the same written rules from
Convention Rule 8. It's not a generic whatever procedure. It's a very
specific written procedure.
Day 3 of the convention video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=v5BOEDjFZ5E
Here are some noteworthy time stamps:
03:37:57 George Phillies moved to suspend the rules such that the top 5
would be elected, rather than requiring a majority.
03:40:46 Aaron Starr is at the mic to raise a point of order, but first
Sarwark notes that the parliamentarians, both Richard Brown and myself are
advising him that RONR does not allow election with a plurality without a
previously adopted rule which says so. He goes on to say he thinks that
since the convention has the power to adopt such rules, that maybe there's
an out...
03:41:47 Aaron cites RONR p. 405 (which says, in part, "A plurality that is
not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office
except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to
apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws.")
There is discussion of whether the at-large members are "officers".
Regardless, we have no "previously adopted" rule authorizing plurality
election.
03:46:42 Nick Sarwark rules that the Phillies motion is out of order. Mr.
Phillies appealed the ruling of the chair. The delegates voted to overturn
the ruling of the chair that the motion was out of order. The Phillies
motion to suspend the rules to appoint the top-5 without a majority
requirement then failed.
04:06:35 Ted Brown had moved to suspend the rules and provide that if 5
at-large candidates did not receive a majority, that those ranking in the
top 5 who did not receive a majority would go onto a second ballot for a
yes/no vote on their election. After much confusion, this motion was
adopted.
04:51:15 Pat Dixon inquires about whether changes made to the procedures
were for at-large only or also for judicial committee. Nick Sarwark
clarifies that it only applies to at-large, and not to judicial committee.
09:01:20 Chair pro tem Alex Merced informs the delegates that the results
of at-large won't be completed before the established time to adjourn.
Thus anyone receiving a majority on the ballot would be elected, but the
LNC would fill any remaining vacancies because there was no time to conduct
the second ballot.
09:04:35 Nick Sarwark resumes the chair, indicates that we only have 5
minutes left, and states his own motion to appoint the top-5 finishers,
regardless of whether they have received a majority. He immediately rules
his own motion to be out of order and says, "You're going to say, 'I appeal
the ruling of the chair, and I don't think that that's out of order,
really.' You're going to overturn the ruling of the chair, and then we're
gonna to do it that way."
09:07:05 Rich Tomasso inquires whether it would instead be in order for
the convention to direct the LNC to fill any vacancies with the next top
finishers, to avoid violating the rules. Nick Sarwark advises that he
believes RONR protects the delegates for breaking the rules, so he
proceeds. The ruling of the chair is appealed. The chair's ruling was
overturned. With the ruling overturned, Michael Kielsky noted the actual
motion hadn't been voted on, only the point of order. A voice vote adopted
the motion that the top 5 plurality will be elected to at-large.
09:11:15 A delegate moved to adjourn. Darryl Perry was attempting to
raise a request for information, but the chair refused to recognize him,
asserting that the motion to adjourn was privileged and thus had to be
dealt with first, so he instead took a vote on the motion to adjourn, which
was adopted. Immediately after the convention was declared adjourned,
Darryl Perry noted we also don't know the result of the Judicial Committee,
and the chair responded with, "Ah, damn it, we adjourned. I'm sorry,
Darryl." (Parliamentary note: RONR p. 234 says that when the effect of a
motion to adjourn is that it would dissolve the assembly with no provision
to meet again, like the final meeting of a convention, the motion is NOT
privileged.)
It was clarified to the convention that the suspension of the rules did NOT
apply to the Judicial Committee. That was not appealed, and the convention
made no provision for the Judicial Committee beyond the existing procedure
in our rules, which requires a majority to be elected.
For us to take an action not within our authority which results in a
Judicial Committee composed of people who did not receive a majority
contravenes what the convention did, which was to leave the existing rules
in place.
I do not agree that we are in a situation analogous to the one described in
Q107 of Parliamentary Law (which is a Q&A book of parliamentary theory, not
rules that bind us as is RONR as our parliamentary authority). That
situation is an existential crisis, when the organization has so hamstrung
itself that it is unable to function. It is an extreme scenario, and we
aren't there. We can function. We have a board, which all that really
exists between conventions anyway, and that board will call a convention,
and the organization is not in an existential crisis. We have only one
particular committee which won't exist for a bit. That's hardly a
situation that prevents us from functioning, such that we must break the
rules or else cease to exist. The impossibility of amending the SOP is a
much more analogous situation, but I know some of your heads will explode
now.
Most other organizations exist and function without anything like the
Judicial Committee. If their boards screw up, the next convention can vote
them out.
If the LNC does nothing and simply accepts the reality that we have no
Judicial Committee for now, at the 2020 convention, the convention could
adopt a bylaw change which permits any Judicial Committee vacancies to be
filled by conventions at the half-way point of the 4-year term. Then the
convention could fill the vacancies itself for the remainder of this term.
But if the LNC passes this motion, there would be no acknowledgment that
there even are vacancies for the convention to fill, so we're setting up a
fight for 2020.
I think this is bad news all around. I urge those who have voted yes to
reconsider before the end of the voting period.
If the LNC simply behaves itself and abides within the rules given to us
for the next two years, the vacant Judicial Committee won't matter.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business
> list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors:
> Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn Motion: Move that
> the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the election of the
> following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year term: D. Frank
> Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett, Geoff Neale, Jim
> Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of the Secretary's
> manual tally of votes here: [1]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
> - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [3]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. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
> 2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
I vote no.
I have respect for the co-sponsors, and I know they mean well, however
I cannot agree with this approach.
I realize that I'm making my argument late in the voting cycle, and my
chances of flipping votes may be slim because of the
already-invested-in-my-vote factor, but I just didn't have the time to
write this until now.
This motion violates our rules, and my vote is not because I think we
should instead address the situation in some other way which also
violates the rules. No Judicial Committee was elected by the
convention. This motion effectively represents the LNC electing the
Judicial Committee, contrary to our bylaws which only allow the
convention to elect the Judicial Committee. If this motion passes, it
should be appealed to the Judicial Committee, except that we don't have
one.
With 21 candidates for 7 seats, the average delegate voted for only
5.27 candidates, so it's not surprising that no one received a
majority. There are potential consequences to strategic under-voting.
The LNC does not make the bylaws, but it must operate within them. Our
votes here must not be on the basis of what we wish the rule were
instead, but rather on what the existing rule is.
What is the rule? Bylaws Article 8.1 clearly lays out that the
Judicial Committee is elected by the convention. RONR principle of
interpretation #4 (spanning pages 589-590) clearly says that when the
bylaws "authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same
class are thereby prohibited." That means the LNC can't elect the
Judicial Committee because the bylaws give that duty only to the
convention. This bylaw clearly says the term of the prior Judicial
Committee has ended.
Convention Rule 8 delineates how LNC members are elected, and the
procedure for at-large requires majority vote for election. Convention
Rule 9 says, "Nominations and elections for members of the Judicial
Committee shall be conducted in the same manner as specified for
at-large members of the National Committee.
Some are taking the approach of, "I represent constituency X, so I'll
vote how they want me to vote", however all of our positions and these
constituencies exist within a framework of rules given to us by the
constituency of the convention delegates. Some members of Congress
have constituencies who want to ban all firearms, but because of the
Second Amendment, it's unlawful to do that.
Mr. Moulton wrote up an analysis that listed 5 different theories about
how this should be handled, but it failed to address how all but one of
those theories violates our rules. Instead it spoke in terms of which
one we dislike the least. I particularly don't understand the talk
about the members from the prior Judicial Committee term "resigning"
from positions they no longer hold, appointing replacements though
since their term has ended they no longer have power to fill vacancies,
voting on some unspecified motion as though they hold a position
entitled to a vote, etc.
I have comments about the manner in which the at-large race was
handled, but that's a different thread. Regardless, the convention
took a clearly-defined action to specify the at-large winners as being
the top-5 finishers.
The convention did not do so with the Judicial Committee, which leaves
us to operate within the confines of the existing rules. Since none
received a majority vote, none were elected, just as would have been
the case with at-large had the delegates not taken action on that
subject.
One theory being floated is that Convention Rule 9 says Judicial
Committee uses the same procedure as at-large, so either the top-5 or
the top-x finishers are elected by plurality. Look at the rule again.
It doesn't say whatever procedure the rules are suspended to be for
At-Large. It says the JC uses the same procedure "as specified" for
at-large. This is essentially an incorporation by reference of the
same written rules from Convention Rule 8. It's not a generic whatever
procedure. It's a very specific written procedure.
Day 3 of the convention video is here:
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=v5BOEDjFZ5E
Here are some noteworthy time stamps:
03:37:57 George Phillies moved to suspend the rules such that the top 5
would be elected, rather than requiring a majority.
03:40:46 Aaron Starr is at the mic to raise a point of order, but first
Sarwark notes that the parliamentarians, both Richard Brown and myself
are advising him that RONR does not allow election with a plurality
without a previously adopted rule which says so. He goes on to say he
thinks that since the convention has the power to adopt such rules,
that maybe there's an out...
03:41:47 Aaron cites RONR p. 405 (which says, in part, "A plurality
that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to
office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a
rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in
the bylaws.") There is discussion of whether the at-large members are
"officers". Regardless, we have no "previously adopted" rule
authorizing plurality election.
03:46:42 Nick Sarwark rules that the Phillies motion is out of order.
Mr. Phillies appealed the ruling of the chair. The delegates voted to
overturn the ruling of the chair that the motion was out of order. The
Phillies motion to suspend the rules to appoint the top-5 without a
majority requirement then failed.
04:06:35 Ted Brown had moved to suspend the rules and provide that if
5 at-large candidates did not receive a majority, that those ranking in
the top 5 who did not receive a majority would go onto a second ballot
for a yes/no vote on their election. After much confusion, this motion
was adopted.
04:51:15 Pat Dixon inquires about whether changes made to the
procedures were for at-large only or also for judicial committee. Nick
Sarwark clarifies that it only applies to at-large, and not to judicial
committee.
09:01:20 Chair pro tem Alex Merced informs the delegates that the
results of at-large won't be completed before the established time to
adjourn. Thus anyone receiving a majority on the ballot would be
elected, but the LNC would fill any remaining vacancies because there
was no time to conduct the second ballot.
09:04:35 Nick Sarwark resumes the chair, indicates that we only have 5
minutes left, and states his own motion to appoint the top-5
finishers, regardless of whether they have received a majority. He
immediately rules his own motion to be out of order and says, "You're
going to say, 'I appeal the ruling of the chair, and I don't think that
that's out of order, really.' You're going to overturn the ruling of
the chair, and then we're gonna to do it that way."
09:07:05 Rich Tomasso inquires whether it would instead be in order
for the convention to direct the LNC to fill any vacancies with the
next top finishers, to avoid violating the rules. Nick Sarwark advises
that he believes RONR protects the delegates for breaking the rules, so
he proceeds. The ruling of the chair is appealed. The chair's ruling
was overturned. With the ruling overturned, Michael Kielsky noted the
actual motion hadn't been voted on, only the point of order. A voice
vote adopted the motion that the top 5 plurality will be elected to
at-large.
09:11:15 A delegate moved to adjourn. Darryl Perry was attempting to
raise a request for information, but the chair refused to recognize
him, asserting that the motion to adjourn was privileged and thus had
to be dealt with first, so he instead took a vote on the motion to
adjourn, which was adopted. Immediately after the convention was
declared adjourned, Darryl Perry noted we also don't know the result of
the Judicial Committee, and the chair responded with, "Ah, damn it, we
adjourned. I'm sorry, Darryl." (Parliamentary note: RONR p. 234 says
that when the effect of a motion to adjourn is that it would dissolve
the assembly with no provision to meet again, like the final meeting of
a convention, the motion is NOT privileged.)
It was clarified to the convention that the suspension of the rules did
NOT apply to the Judicial Committee. That was not appealed, and the
convention made no provision for the Judicial Committee beyond the
existing procedure in our rules, which requires a majority to be
elected.
For us to take an action not within our authority which results in a
Judicial Committee composed of people who did not receive a majority
contravenes what the convention did, which was to leave the existing
rules in place.
I do not agree that we are in a situation analogous to the one
described in Q107 of Parliamentary Law (which is a Q&A book of
parliamentary theory, not rules that bind us as is RONR as our
parliamentary authority). That situation is an existential crisis,
when the organization has so hamstrung itself that it is unable to
function. It is an extreme scenario, and we aren't there. We can
function. We have a board, which all that really exists between
conventions anyway, and that board will call a convention, and the
organization is not in an existential crisis. We have only one
particular committee which won't exist for a bit. That's hardly a
situation that prevents us from functioning, such that we must break
the rules or else cease to exist. The impossibility of amending the
SOP is a much more analogous situation, but I know some of your heads
will explode now.
Most other organizations exist and function without anything like the
Judicial Committee. If their boards screw up, the next convention can
vote them out.
If the LNC does nothing and simply accepts the reality that we have no
Judicial Committee for now, at the 2020 convention, the convention
could adopt a bylaw change which permits any Judicial Committee
vacancies to be filled by conventions at the half-way point of the
4-year term. Then the convention could fill the vacancies itself for
the remainder of this term.
But if the LNC passes this motion, there would be no acknowledgment
that there even are vacancies for the convention to fill, so we're
setting up a fight for 2020.
I think this is bad news all around. I urge those who have voted yes
to reconsider before the end of the voting period.
If the LNC simply behaves itself and abides within the rules given to
us for the next two years, the vacant Judicial Committee won't matter.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the
LNC-Business
list by July 14, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors:
Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Hagan, Merced, Van Horn Motion: Move
that
the Libertarian National Committee acknowledge the election of
the
following to the Judicial Committee for a four-year term: D.
Frank
Robinson, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Ruth Bennett, Geoff Neale,
Jim
Turney, and Tricia Sprankle. You can keep track of the
Secretary's
manual tally of votes here: [1][3]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
- [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [3]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. [4]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
2. mailto:[5]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
3. [6]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=v5BOEDjFZ5E
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
4. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
6. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list