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

Mon May 4 13:41:46 EDT 2020

Thank you Madam Secretary for your attention to my requests of citation.

I requested them so that the LNC may have the basis and understanding of
the role of the presiding officer in relation to voting in committee
business. I harbor no ill will, as you know I am relevantly new to this
committee, and do apologize for the repeat request for citation from
your reference in the meeting. 

Healthy discourse is the core of a functioning deliberative body, and it
is my wish that we may all hold that in the forefront of our minds as we
discuss this most difficult topic which will have ramifications for many
years to come. 

Respectfully,

---
FRANCIS WENDT
LNC Region 1 Alternate
 406.595.5111 

On 2020-05-04 00:34, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> 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. _