[Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair

[Richard Longstreth]

I will vote in favor of the ruling of the chair.

Because this deals with a question of the LNC determining where it's
boundaries are when it comes to membership, I believe that the Chair is
erring on the side of authority specifically laid out in our governing
documents as the best interpretation for this body and the best
interpretation to avoid potential negative consequences and avoiding the
creation of a dangerous precedent. With the chairs interpretation, the
decision lies completely with the delegates in May and protects the rights
of our members by not allowing the LNC to have power not explicitly
expressed in our documents. Imagine if our federal government exercised
this restraint!

As an example dealing with explicitly stated rules in our documents: the
relevant bylaws do say that we (as a body) must honor all past life
memberships. To some this would seem obvious. To the delegates, it was
clearly intended that it should never even be a question. The delegates did
not build into our bylaws a way to deny or confirm membership. They simply
have indicated that if the pledge and dues come in, they are a member. The
strict interpretation offered by our Chair protects our membership from
rogue LNCs removing members for a variety of reasons regardless of
intention.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider this question very
carefully. I would also like to add that if the chair is overruled, I will
be deferring to the opinions of my state chairs on the main motion which is
very mixed at the moment. This vote is mine as it a question of the LNC
following procedures, not the main motion, and is based on experience
helping write bylaws and other governing documents for libertarian groups
for years. We do not like overreaching governance and this would set a
dangerous precedent for just that. I consider this an overstep with good
intentions.

I urge my peers to affirm the Chair's decision and let the delegation
decide something different in May if they so choose.

Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 08:20 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Forgive the typos pls, my phone sent the msg before I was done correcting
> them.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Dec 29, 2019 9:18 AM, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
>
> I vote no.
>
> Reasoning on the underlying motion aside, Mr Scheetz' summation of the
> interaction between Roberts and Bylaws covers why I believe the chair to be
> incorrect.  Which I will post below.
>
> I urge all to vote no on the ruling of the chair even if you will turn
> around and vote against the underlying motion.
>
> The notion that the board cannot do anything is absurd.  Whether we should
> or not is the subject of the underlying motion and should be left for that
> discussion.
>
> Whether this matter should have come before us is a moot point now.  The
> fact is that it did, and our duty and responsibility to the party requires
> us to respond. Mr Sarwark' s ruling, his comments, and his actions seek to
> prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities and duty our constituents
> and party.  This is not something any of us should accept, AGAIN even if
> you will vote no against the underlying motion.
>
> Support what our bylaws, including there direct referral to Robert's
> actually say, and vote no on the appeal.
>
> "The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most
> importantly:
>
> • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
> 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in
> writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or
> social goals.
>
> Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the
> individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the
> certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has
> served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated,
> this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.
>
> The Chair is correct in stating that our Bylaws does not give the
> authority to remove membership, in fact our Bylaws say nothing about
> disciplining members at all. However, what our Bylaws DO say:
>
> • ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
> The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order,
> Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are
> applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any
> special rules of order adopted by the Party.
>
> In short, since there is nothing suggesting anything regarding
> disciplining members, the LNC does have the authority to consult Roberts
> Rules on the matter since it does cover disciplinary actions by a body:
>
> • Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members.
>
> 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A
> deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own
> laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion
> from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society,
> it has the right, for its own protection
>
> The Libertarian Party has the right for its own protection, and as such,
> we have the right to freely disassociate with individuals whose intentions
> are unclear given their actions. I strongly urge the LNC to send the money
> back to this particular individual, but invite him to become a member once
> he has been found innocent, or once restitution has been made."
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
>
>
>