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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Wendt you know I think you are bomb diggity.

*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 Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:41 AM Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org> wrote:

> 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. *
>
>
>
>