[Lnc-business] Bylaws, and members, and alternates! Oh, my!

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I agree with you and would today vote differently.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:15 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> As a follow-up to a prior discussion about whether LNC regional alternates
> are “members” of the national committee, I’ve composed this longer essay
> about the messy implications.
>
> RONR p. 3 explains that, “A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary
> sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in
> its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend
> meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote.  No member can
> be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any
> basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or
> to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary
> proceedings.”
>
> Bylaws Article 7.2.c provides for the regional alternate position, but in
> the rest of the bylaws, the only role assigned to them is in the context of
> email ballots.
>
> Bylaws Article 13 :
> “The chair or secretary shall send out electronic mail ballots on any
> question submitted by the chair or cosponsored by at least 1/5 of the
> members of the board or committee.  The period for voting on a question
> shall remain open for seven days, unless all members have cast votes, or
> have stated an intention to abstain or be absent during the voting period,
> by electronic mail to the entire board or committee.  Votes from alternates
> will be counted, in accordance with previously defined ranked order, in the
> absence of the corresponding committee member(s).”
>
> Article 13 of the bylaws makes it clear that regional alternates do not
> have full voting rights as do regional representatives, since their email
> ballot votes aren’t counted if the regional representative votes.  Article
> 13 doesn't see an alternate as a “member” under the RONR p. 3 definition.
> The final sentence of that Article 13 makes a specific distinction between
> the alternate(s) and the “corresponding committee member(s).”
>
> The LNC has generally not perceived regional alternates to be “members” of
> the LNC.
>
> Article 13 above says that “members” can cosponsor email ballots, but in
> all the years I’ve been involved, the LNC has never allowed alternates to
> do that.
>
> We have never included alternates in quorum calculations, though Bylaws
> Article 7.10 says, “A majority of the membership of the National Committee
> shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at all meetings.”
>
> We have never declared alternate seats vacant under Bylaws Article 7.6, “A
> National Committee member who fails to attend two consecutive regular
> sessions of the National Committee shall be deemed to have vacated his or
> her seat.”
>
> The chair asks the LNC for consent to allow a regional alternate to speak
> in debate during our in-person meetings.  The RONR p. 263 footnote says
> this is required for “nonmembers”, but p. 3 says “members” have the
> automatic right to speak in debate.
>
> There are other parts of the bylaws that would be interpreted differently
> if alternates are considered “members”, though they’re in provisions that
> don’t often come into play.
>
> Then there’s Bylaws Article 9.2, which says, “The non-officer members of
> the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit Committee of three
> members with power to select the independent auditor.  One member shall be
> a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not
> be members of the National Committee.”
>
> As noted above, in many ways the LNC does not consider alternates to be
> members.  But in September, a regional alternate was nominated for the
> “member of the National Committee” seat on the Audit Committee.  I raised a
> point of order and argued that I didn’t believe a regional alternate was
> eligible because the bylaw specifies “member”.  The chair ruled that a
> regional alternate is eligible.  I appealed the ruling, but I was the only
> person who voted no, and the ruling was sustained with a vote of 13-1.
>
> The chair’s ruling (and presumably the LNC's vote) was based on Bylaws
> Article 7.2, which says, “The National Committee shall be composed of the
> following members:…” and it proceeds to list officers, at-large, and define
> regions including the regional reps and the regional alternates.  When that
> phrase is observed in a proverbial vacuum, there’s not much to argue
> about…but it is not consistent with how the LNC has handled all those other
> things I mentioned.
>
> The chair recently responded to an inquiry as to whether alternates
> automatically vacate their seats under Bylaws Article 7.6 if they miss two
> consecutive in-person meetings.  His response was consistent with this
> LNC’s vote to sustain his September ruling on how to apply Article 7.2 when
> it came to the Audit Committee.
>
> But now hopefully you see how problematic that is.  If we interpret Article
> 7.2 that way, it causes a number of side effects that we’ve never accepted
> before.
>
> The reality is that our bylaw language has a consistency problem, and it
> needs to be fixed.  Over time, as I’ve realized the implications, I’ve come
> to the conclusion that it is Article 7.2 which is out of kilter with the
> bulk of the bylaws, and it just shouldn’t use the term “members” so as to
> create those cascading side effects.
>
> In 2018, there was a bylaw amendment proposed to fix this, but we never got
> to that proposal.  Hopefully in 2020, we’ll get a vote on a fix.
>
> At the same time we should probably decide in Bylaw Article 8.1 whether
> regional alternates are also precluded from serving on the Judicial
> Committee or only “members”, and in Article 11.2 whether the limit of five
> “members of the current National Committee” serving on the Bylaws and Rules
> Committee is meant to also count alternates.
>
> I didn’t have this lecture prepared to successfully off-the-cuff-argue the
> point in September, but hopefully now you appreciate why I argued it at
> all, and that I wasn't just being a cranky-pants contrarian.  I realize
> that the point doesn't just leap out at you at first glance, but rather
> takes a bit to wrap your head around it.
>
> -Alicia
>
-- 

*  In Liberty,*

*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
Call me at 561.523.2250 and follow my public figure page at
facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/

=========================================================================
Peaceful Commerce With All Nations * Non-interventionism * Re-Legalize All
Drugs * End Government Intrusion In The Bedroom * Repeal All Gun Laws *
Abolish All Taxation * Sound, Free-market Money * Abolish The Fed * End
Corporate & Individual Welfare * Abolish The IRS and Repeal the Income Tax
* Privatize Transportation Infrastructure * Free-market Emergency Services
* Open Migration * Transfer Government Schools To The Private Sector *
Eliminate Regulation *

*VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>*
=========================================================================