[Lnc-business] interpreting "place" of convention to be virtual

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Brown has confirmed that we are not at the impossibility phase.  Ask
him.

*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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:26 AM dustin.nanna--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> From what I understand Richard Brown has confirmed this. He is my expert
> of choice personally.
>
> On May 8, 2020 11:08 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Copy paste from another thread. There is one question that seems not to be
> addressed in all this:
>
> I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings.
> However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to
> the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply
> missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are
> brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts
> stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to
> take it off the table for me.
>
> Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can
> be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced
> that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around
> the party, including those in favor of postponment acknowledge this. I
> want
> to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not
> trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
>
> For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to
> indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an
> electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this
> directly
> and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific
> question.
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020, 02:50 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > All I can say is - ^^^^that.  Ms. Mattson is absolutely correct on all
> > counts.
> >
> > there is ZERO ambiguity here.  I would add provision that Ms. Mattson
> > didn't....
> >
> > *Page 263*
> >
> > *Rules contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended - no matter how large
> > the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question
> may
> > be.*
> >
> > I would add... no matter how much the chair dislikes it.
> >
> > I keep hearing  well some large group of members want an all online
> > convention.  Note the quote above.  It doesn't matter.  No matter how
> the
> > large the vote, the bylaws are the bylaws.
> >
> > I like the way Roberts for Dummies puts it:
> >
> > Know when you can’t suspend the rules
> >
> > Unless you provide a rule to allow you to make exceptions, you probably
> > don’t want to have any rules at all. But some rules *cannot be
> suspended:*
> >
> >    -
> >
> >    Constitution and bylaws: Your bylaws are a contract between members,
> and
> >    they can’t be suspended, no matter how great a vote to suspend them
> may
> > be.
> >    Nor can they be suspended because the rule is just too inconvenient.
> >
> >
> > *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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:47 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > > <NS> It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the
> > > Libertarian National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that
> > “place”
> > > in the bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it
> is
> > > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the
> party
> > to
> > > travel to a physical location.  As such, a virtual convention held on
> > > Memorial Day weekend would be a proper convention and compliant with
> the
> > > bylaws.</NS>
> > >
> > > Though there is no pending question before us to give cause for a
> ruling,
> > > let's suppose that there is intent to make a motion on Saturday which
> > would
> > > give such occasion, and this is the ruling we hear from the chair.  I
> > know
> > > the chair will cut me off before I could say all of this in a meeting,
> so
> > > I'll hope you'll consider my thinking in advance.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1)  When the argument is that we should make an interpretation, it is
> > > important to not stop reading RONR passages too early.  RONR p. 588 -
> 591
> > > gives some "principles of interpretation" and I hear lots of people
> quote
> > > the beginning of #1, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of
> its
> > > bylaws" and then stop reading there.  Usually the arguments come from
> > > ignoring the first three sentences of the paragraph, but in this case
> > let's
> > > focus on the fourth sentence.
> > >
> > > "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the
> > > meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote,
> cannot
> > > change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must
> > exist
> > > before there is any occasion for interpretation. If a bylaw is
> ambiguous,
> > > it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other bylaws.
> > ..."
> > >
> > > Also note principle #2, "When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible
> to
> > > two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another
> bylaw
> > > provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as
> > the
> > > true meaning."
> > >
> > > Is it harmonious with our other bylaws to say that "place" includes an
> > > online convention?
> > >
> > > Well, our bylaws adopt RONR, which as I have noted before on RONR p.
> 97,
> > > "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization
> or
> > > board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called
> > > meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official
> gathering
> > in
> > > one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is
> > > present."
> > >
> > > With that in our parliamentary authority, if our bylaws do not
> authorize
> > > it, then our bylaws inherently prohibit it, and a bylaw amendment
> would
> > > have to be adopted to authorize it.
> > >
> > > Our bylaws also say that the LNC meets "at such times and places as
> may
> > be
> > > determined by...," yet we understood we needed to put separate and
> clear
> > > language into our bylaws to allow electronic meetings for boards and
> > > committees.  Principle of interpretation #4 would apply here to say
> that
> > > listing certain things serves to prohibit other things of the same
> class,
> > > so authorizing electronic meetings only for boards and committees
> would
> > > preclude it for conventions.
> > >
> > > We did not adopt language to authorize it for conventions, and
> > interpreting
> > > the word "place" regarding the calling of conventions is certainly not
> > > sufficient to do it.
> > >
> > > We have other phrases in our bylaws which only exist with a physical
> > > location convention hall, such as:
> > > - "All members must wear the identification badge issued upon
> > registration
> > > in order to be admitted to the Convention hall."  (what must I wear to
> > the
> > > virtual convention?)
> > > - our bylaws speak of delegates, "who are temporarily or permanently
> > absent
> > > from the floor"  (cyberspace does not have a floor, but convention
> halls
> > > do)
> > > - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, the 30-token rule
> for
> > > nominations involves the "affixing of signatures to a nominating
> > petition"
> > > which is a physical interaction
> > > - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, it calls for voice
> > votes
> > > which are absurd in an electronic meeting
> > >
> > > There are likely other instances, but you get the point that the
> > > interpretation of "place" as being virtual is NOT in harmony with
> other
> > > bylaws/rules which are physical in nature.
> > >
> > > I don't see that the principles of interpretation really give us a
> path
> > to
> > > interpret that "place" includes a virtual meeting.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2)  Let's get more basic than that, though.  On PAGE ONE, we see that
> the
> > > VERY FIRST SENTENCE of RONR begins (caps added by me for emphasis), "A
> > > deliberative assembly - the kind of gathering to which parliamentary
> law
> > is
> > > generally understood to apply - has the following distinguishing
> > > characteristics: [...] The group meets in a single room or area or
> under
> > > equivalent conditions of opportunity for SIMULTANEOUS AURAL
> COMMUNICATION
> > > AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS."
> > >
> > > RONR p. 97 repeats the thought that an electronic meeting, "does not
> lose
> > > its character as a deliberative assembly (see pp. 1–2) so long as the
> > > meetings provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for
> > simultaneous
> > > aural communication among all participating members equivalent to
> those
> > of
> > > meetings held in one room or area."
> > >
> > > RONR p. 5 (beginning principle) lists principal types of deliberative
> > > assemblies as including a convention.  If there's no simultaneous
> aural
> > > communication, it's not a deliberative assembly, and it's not a
> > convention.
> > >
> > > Besides the other serious problems, the Zoom-webinar which was tested
> > > earlier this week did NOT allow for simultaneous aural communication
> > among
> > > all participants.  The configuration is designed for information to
> only
> > > flow one direction, and all others merely observe.  Delegates were
> only
> > > allowed to hear each other speak when the chair permitted it.  Nor
> could
> > we
> > > use the chat room to communicate directly with each other.  We
> couldn't
> > see
> > > who, or even how many were "present."  By and large we had no idea
> what
> > > other delegates were doing.
> > >
> > > This configuration fails to meet a mandatory requirement of a
> > deliberative
> > > assembly.  It so egregiously undermines the ability of the delegates
> to
> > > exercise their fundamental rights.  Each delegate was in an isolation
> > cage,
> > > limited to information the chair decided to give us.  That was not a
> > valid
> > > deliberative assembly, was not a meeting of a deliberative assembly,
> and
> > > could not be a convention.  The delegates have not ceded their rights
> in
> > > this way.
> > >
> > > When a subset of LNC members first evaluated electronic meeting
> options
> > for
> > > boards/committees, we thoroughly evaluataed the ability of
> participants
> > to
> > > know the status of other participants.  Are they in the meeting at
> all?
> > Is
> > > their microphone muted?  Can the participants see whose hands were
> raised
> > > so we know who is being ignored?  These features were very important
> to
> > > prevent a participant from being admin-blocked from participation.
> The
> > > Zoom-webinar configuration bulldozes all of those participant
> protections
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > I'm going to need something more concrete than "These aren't the
> droids
> > you
> > > are looking for," to be convinced that the chair's ruling is correct,
> > and I
> > > would enthusiastically vote to overturn such a ruling.
> > >
> > > -Alicia
> > >
> >
>
>
>