[Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: An article that may be of interest to the members of the Libertarian National Committee

Mon May 4 02:34:55 EDT 2020

In response to Mr. Wendt.

This is addressed on a  series of pages.

Page 53 beginning on line 15

*Chair's Vote as Part of Announcement, Where it Affects the Vote*

If the presiding officer is a member of assembly or voting body, he has the
same voting *right* as any other member.  Except in a small board or
committee [my note - defined in RONR as boards of less than 12 or so
members so we do not qualify] however -- unless that vote is secret (that
is unless it is by ballot) *the chair protects his impartial position by
exercising his voting right ONLY when his vote would affect the outcome, in
which he CAN either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain.*
[bold, cap, and underline emphasis mine]

We continue to page 394, lines 24-29

If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has -- as an
individual -- the same * right* in debate as any other member, *but the
impartiality required of the chair in an assembly **PRECLUDES* *his
exercising those rights while he is presiding.  * [bold, cap, and underline
emphasis mine]

Continue to page 405, lines 20-24

If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote as any
other member *WHEN the vote  is by ballot.  In all other cases the
presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, CAN (but is not obligated
to) whenever his vote will affect the result -- *that is, he can vote to
there break or cause a tie...

Continue to page 421, lines 421-423 dealing with the Secretary

The roll is called in alphabetical order except that the presiding's
officer's name is called last, *and only when his vote will affect the
results. * [emphasis mine]

When I read that last section in my studies, I realized my taking of the
roll was wrong.  I informed the LNC of this fact via email on February 11.
I also informed the Chair at the very next executive committee meeting why
I would no longer be calling his name in the roll.  So this position of
mine was revealed to the LNC MONTHS ago, not just tonight.  Apparently
people did not think that message important enough to argue about then.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2020/056258.html

The restrictions are imposed on a parliamentarian who is the acting
parliamentarian while a member of the society (page 457, lines 8-12) except
the parliamentarian's vote is limited to only ballots, not to affect
results.

Though Mr. O'Donnell said he asked in the wrong thread I will answer here
as it is relevant.  We are all familiar with Mr. Sarwark passing the gavel *AT
THE BEGINNING OF A QUESTION HE KNOWS HE WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN* at the
very beginning of the question, and not resuming it until the question is
over.  That is the ONLY way to vacate the chair in order to debate or vote
unless an unexpected issue comes up in which the chair needs to temporarily
do so.  In our meeting, the chair passed the gavel for short periods of
time so he could leave the meeting to attend to personal business.  He did
not do so in order to be partial.  He knew at the beginning of the meeting
he intended on debating - he told many members this prior to the meeting -
and yet he assumed the chair, waiving his debate and voting rights.  He
cannot play hokey pokey with the chair position.  And now as long as this
question is being considered or reconsidered, he has waived his voting
rights.  In between sessions, he may lobby and do as he will as the issues
are all decided.  but we *ARE IN THE SAME SESSION RIGHT NOW.  *We did not
adjourn sine die.  We fixed the time to which to adjourn, thereby
continuing the session which is why I am objecting to his current actions.
If we adjourned sine die, I would not be objecting though I think it would
still be tacky AF and disrespectful to the body.

Ms. Mattson let me know that she may have another RONR page for me to
consider.  Mr. Brown asked me to consider page 53 which he thought made the
voting absence optional.  It does not.  It says ONLY.  I reserve the right
to alter my opinion based on further information brought by Ms. Mattson.

I now want to object to the improper comments made to me here.  It is
completely out of bounds to suggest that ANY member of this body lacks the
purview to object to the conduct of our presiding officer.  And it is an ad
hominem to say "well you argue too" as Mr. Phillips did.  I am not the
chair.  I am allowed to do so and I do not appreciate the insinuation that
since I do it, I cannot complain when someone in a higher position does
it.  This is the typical old party circle the wagons approach I have seen
each time I dare to question the chair, for the past two terms, starting
with the contract with the eternal secrecy provision.  It is not becoming
of the Libertarian Party to act that way.  We MUST be able to examine those
in ultimate control.

*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. *

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:48 PM <justin.odonnell at lp.org> wrote:

> I apologize, my previous message was responded to the wrong thread. The
> volume of emails lately makes for a messy inbox.
>
> Justin O'Donnell
> LNC Region 8 Representative
>
> On May 4, 2020 1:46 AM, justin.odonnell at lp.org wrote:
>
> Quick parliamentary convention.
> Since Nick passed the gavel to Alex, and Mr Merced was the presiding
> officer at the time a motion was made to adjourn the meeting to a specific
> date and time, are we not technically in that same meeting to be reconvened
> at the set date and time, and is not Mr Merced still technically the
> presiding officer since the gavel was never returned to Mr Sarwark prior to
> adjournment?
>
> If this is the case, would not Mr. Sarwark be free to engage in debate as
> a member?
>
>
> Justin O'Donnell
> LNC Region 8 Representative
>
> On May 3, 2020 10:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I cited it in the meeting.  I’m with a houseguest.  When I’m free I’ll do
> so again.
>
> I began to study thus when he voted in his financial self interest before
> your time.  I spoke out then too.
>
> The outside us watching and judging us just as shady as any other
> political
> organization.
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 8:00 PM Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > My point, Madam Secretary, is that you yourself utilized the same
> > opportunity that myself and the Chair utilized as a member of this party
> to
> > address the Bylaws committee during public comments. It is a right of
> > members that does not go away without specific citation, as the bylaws
> > committee is a committee of the convention, and not that of the LNC. In
> > other words, the LNC Chair has no jurisdiction, nor undue influence over
> > the Bylaws committee, and the Bylaws committee, to their credit,
> operated
> > outside of that influence.
> >
> > To further answer your question: yes, I do request the citation that you
> > are referencing in regards to impartiality of the Chair as I would like
> to
> > review your claims for accuracy.
> >
> > Further, I respectfully request the citation to RONR that you gave in
> the
> > meeting yesterday to suppress the customary vote of the chair of the
> LNC.
> > If we have been doing it wrong, yes, I want to know, as this will be
> > valuable information to inform the Bylaws for future amendments.
> >
> >
> > Parliamentary authority should not be wielded as a bludgeon, we are all
> > here to serve the members. Let's not lose sight of that goal.
> > ---
> > *Francis Wendt*
> >
> > LNC Region 1 Alternate
> > 406.595.5111
> >
> >
> > On 2020-05-03 19:39, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >
> > Nothing that affects the business of this party is outside my purview.
> >
> > Are you asking for citations on the fact that the chair is required to
> be
> > impartial while a session is ongoing?
> >
> > We have not adjourned the session sine die.  We are still in that
> > session.  The chair must maintain impartiality until sine die.
> >
> > Circle the wagons when someone raises concerns of impropriety.  That's
> > what most governing bodies do.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:10 PM Francis Wendt via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I would ask respectfully that the Secretary resume impartiality on
> >> matter that are outside of her purview, such as the actions of a member
> >> of this party. If there is a specific decorum that is required of the
> >> officers of this party I request citation. I request the Secretary
> >> outline her view of what is proper and improper in the outside dealings
> >> of this party. Further, I request that every member of this committee
> >> use their own judgement, and prudence in their dealings with each
> other,
> >> and the public.
> >>
> >> Of course my requests mean nothing, because I am just an alternate.
> Such
> >> is the way we roll.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> FRANCIS WENDT
> >> LNC Region 1 Alternate
> >>   406.595.5111
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] An article that may be of interest to the
> >> members of the Libertarian National Committee
> >> Date: 2020-05-03 11:49
> >>  From: Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> >> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> >> Reply-To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>
> >> I would ask respectfully that the chair resume the impartiality
> required
> >> of
> >> a presiding officer.  Including on social media.  The lobbying to
> change
> >> votes seems highly improper.
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:34 AM Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear All,
> >> >
> >> > This article may be of interest to you in advance of our adjourned
> >> > meeting
> >> > this coming Saturday.
> >> >
> >> > https://hbr.org/1987/03/knowing-when-to-pull-the-plug
> >> >
> >> > Yours in liberty,
> >> > Nick
> >> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *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. *
> >
> >
> > --
>
> *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. *
>
>
>
>