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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Very well said Ms Mattson.

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:35 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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.
> *
> > >
> >
>
-- 

*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), please contact me privately and let me know. *