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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Longstreth, I will respect whatever decision you make on the underlying
motion if, God forbid, it  comes down to that.  But let me offer you some
counsel from my time in that seat.  I always deferred to the chairs unless
it violated my fundamental principles.  On this question, I would never
vote for the underlying motion.  I understand I may feel differently than
you, I just wanted to share with you that on certain things, I was very
open I could not  violate certain boundaries even if every state chair
wanted me to.  There are good arguments for another  tact, I just wanted
you to know how I handled. YMMV.

*  In Liberty,*
* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *


On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:40 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I will be writing a full rebuttal on  why Mr. Scheetz is absolutely wrong
> on RONR here.  And those claiming it, I do hope they intend to tell us how
> they intend to have the trial that is required by RONR.  Of course that
> part is blatantly ignored.  And of course, RONR is only invoked when
> convenient, otherwise, it is "hey let's not let the rules the delegates put
> into place get in our way."
>
> Here is the fact.  This has come up over the years many many times.  The
> delegates PURPOSEFULLY  did not give us this power.  You cannot say you are
> protecting the membership by overstepping the explicit boundaries the
> membership put on us.
>
> I apologize for being so blunt, but I see this as a fairly existential
> question.
>
> *  In Liberty,*
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:36 AM Richard Longstreth <
> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>