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

[Alicia Mattson]

I must vote yes, to sustain the ruling of the chair.

When there is agreement between Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, and myself
that the rules just don't give us any option here, perhaps that says
something.  (Though I disagree with a number of the points Ms. Harlos has
made in this debate.)

Sex trafficking of minors is as vile to me as it is to my colleagues and
the members who have taken the time to contact us, and my vote should be in
no way construed to approve of the actions alleged to have been committed
by the person in question.  I fully understand the passion behind the
communications we have received, and I feel that, too.

The U.S. Constitution does not list all the things that the three branches
of government can't do, but we expect them to stay within the lines of
their enumerated powers.  Just as the U.S. Constitution has a 10th
amendment which should be read to limit federal powers, RONR says something
similar.

RONR, 11th ed., spanning pages 589-590, principle of interpretation #4
provides that:

"If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the
same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has
been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid
reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done
without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify
the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited.
Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists
certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a
sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited."

Just as a bylaws listing of specified officers prohibits the electing of
other officers, the listing of membership requirements prohibits adding
other requirements.  The bylaws don't have to list the things we can't do
in order to restrict our options.

Our rights to choose with whom we will collectively associate as fellow
members is exercised via our ability to set our own membership rules.  Our
delegates have the right to amend those rules if they no longer meet our
needs, but the LNC shouldn't use an appeal of a chair's ruling to simply
throw out a rule that the delegates have established for us.

I've heard arguments that the actions in question violate the membership
certification or the NAP.  I've seen plenty of our members commit fraud on
Facebook in their dealings with fellow party members, yet I don't hear
motions to rescind their memberships.  Will this argument be consistently
applied going forward?  We haven't rescinded the membership of Arvin Vohra
in spite of all the ruckus last term.

Though I can think of a number of people who have engaged in conduct so
very outrageous that it merits expulsion, I've seen no existing mechanism
to do that, and perhaps that's because the delegates fear the potential
circular firing squad.  For each of us, there's someone in the party who
thinks we don't belong in the party...and for reasons nowhere near the
awful subject matter we are now faced with.

If there is to be a bylaw amendment to create a mechanism, it should be
written very carefully.

I see I am not the only person to have wondered whether this is a setup
situation intended to stir people up.  I have no information to demonstrate
that it is, but it's the worse-case scenario dropping into our laps just as
internal elections heat up...  I mean, if you wanted to draw attention,
what better way to do it than to send the thing with the prison as the
return address?

-Alicia




On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:35 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I vote yes to sustain the ruling of the chair.
>
> I will repost here the explanation I gave to the membership.
>
> Years ago I learned of a situation about LNC over-reach regarding Oregon.
> The decision the LNC made was not done in bad faith. Many could agree that
> it was the right decision.
>
> That was never the point. The point was whether or not the LNC had the
> authority to make that decision in the first place - good decision or bad
> was irrelevant.
>
> They did not have that authority.
>
> I was appalled that they tried to do that so I ran for the LNC originally
> to protect Colorado and other region 1 states from that ever happening to
> them.
>
> Opposing LNC overreach is thus my primary motivation for being on the LNC
> to begin with.
>
> We have another situation that is similar in principle. No one is acting in
> bad faith. The thing attempting to be done is very arguably a good
> decision. But we do not have the authority to do so. We would be hypocrites
> of the highest order if we interpret our bylaws which DO specifically
> address a situation as allowing something not allowed in those specific
> instructions. That goes against Libertarian principles of governing and
> against parliamentary principles of member rights. It is what we condemn in
> the government every single day.
>
> No matter my emotions, I cannot act outside the bylaws, and I will not.
>
> I urge the delegates to amend the bylaws if this is a power that they wish
> the LNC to have.
>
> Be careful what you wish for. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
>
> A method to put this power in the hands of the delegates (perhaps by
> petition of 10% of the prior delegates at the last convention similar to an
> appeal) is far preferable.
>
> I have heard an argument that our duty is to the many rather than the one.
>
> If that is true, Libertarianism is a fraud.
>
> You may disagree with my position, but it is held with conviction of my
> principles and in good faith. I respect the many many members that have
> written. But the ends do not justify the means. Yes, this needs to be
> fixed. It is not fixed by the LNC abusing its p ower.
>
> I am ashamed at what this had degenerated into. It is producing a lot of
> heat and very little light.
>
> This never should have been a public social media spectacle. One LNC member
> took it up on themselves to take this out of a confidential session. That
> was wrong. Other LNC members took advantage of that fact and are washing
> their hands of it pointing fingers at that first discloser. That is wrong.
> To be clear, discussing the situation publication is fine - disclosing the
> name of the private individual is wrong and is a violation of our duties.
> And our policy manual makes it clear that it is still wrong even if "he/she
> did it first." Several LNC members are in violation of this principle.
>
> With the exception of the issue in the paragraph above, there are no bad
> actions - and even in those bad actions - those were not done in malice but
> in good faith. One can be wrong in good faith.
>
> The LNC members that disagree with me are doing so in good faith. I do urge
> them to reconsider.
>
> *  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 1:30 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
> >
> > We have an electronic mail ballot.
> >
> > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm
> > Pacific time.
> >
> > Co-Sponsors:  Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
> >
> > =============================================
> >
> >
> > Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr.
> > Phillips (located here:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ  and
> > the ruling of the chair is here:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was
> > out of order.
> >
> > =============================================
> >
> > THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
> >
> >
> > PROCEDURAL NOTE:  A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair.  A NO vote
> > over-rules the ruling of the chair.  It takes a majority of NO votes to
> > overturn the ruling of the Chair.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
> > https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1.  Votes are noted with a link to the
> > actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the
> manual
> > tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
> >
> > Please notify me of any discrepancies.
> >
> > *  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.  *
> >
>