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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

There absolutely is not impossibility - for our bylaws it’s a very high
standard since we have no prescribed floor number.

The only portion an argument can be made is for our ticket.  And that
argument is not super strong.

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:13 AM Richard Longstreth <
richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:

> Sam, sell me a policy :)
>
> For now, that's the questions I wanted addressed. I don't interpret the
> authors opinion as you do but at least I understand where you and
> presumably others are coming from.
>
> The ultimate question is a guess or feeling on impossibility. Are we there
> now or not? Do indicators show we are over the hump on infection or is
> there a chance this will continue for a long period of time? The
> interpretation authorizes the use of electronic meeting in case of
> impossibility and that sounds like something we all agree on but where that
> line is is another matter. Perhaps we should spend some time defining that
> tomorrow.
>
> Our motion has been passed for a total reschedule so this body does not
> believe impossibility has been met as of last meeting. In talking with many
> of you, however, that is not the message I'm receiving. I'm receiving a
> message of hoping things are better down the road. Well, my Jake will tell
> you, I don't like to cling to hope without evidence of possibility.
> Unfortunately, in today's world, all we really have are government stats
> which I really don't trust so this puts me in a hard place to form a
> judgement call.
>
> I'd encourage each member of this body to meditate more on that specific
> question leading into tomorrow as we, to my knowledge, will have at least
> one motion to ballot on the P/VP (which I'm only supportive of) and
> possibly others (which I will have to see first). Be civil with each other
> and hopefully this will be a mere memory once we win POTUS at the end of
> the year (holding onto hope :) ).
>
> 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, 08:45 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Ignored implies seen... but enough on that.  You now know I am perfectly
>> willing to engage.
>>
>> We do reference RONR opinions on items in the book - i.e. what the
>> authors meant.  This is not that class of opinion.  This is an opinion on
>> how to violate RONR and the bylaws and get away with it due to a pandemic.
>> And the only time that is justified is due to impossibility which we
>> situation we do not have.
>>
>> That opinion will hold anyone time you want to violate something and get
>> away with it.  Better have good officers liability coverage though which is
>> what they were also saying.  You want to risk being liable?  I don't.
>>
>> *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 9:34 AM Richard Longstreth <
>> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's what I did because every time I asked, it was not responded to
>>> (aka, ignored :) )
>>>
>>> When in interpreting the RONR then do we not reference those opinions?
>>> I've always operated as them going together. Should the bylaws specifically
>>> say that? Are there examples of organizations that specifically include the
>>> opinions as authority as well? I've never heard of that before and it seems
>>> like a stretch to outlawing the practice to me rather than being open to
>>> the authoritative interpretation if that view is held.
>>>
>>> Again, I am asking to form an understanding and out of personal
>>> ignorance, not purposefully forming arguments. I've explicitly kept my
>>> questions away from our current matter in trying to understand.
>>>
>>> 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, 08:26 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nearly anything can be ratified.  However, bylaws cannot be violated
>>>> even by unanimous consent.    I posted that language up above.
>>>>
>>>> The ratification has to be held at an actual convention.  The only
>>>> thing this works for is P/VP not the whole thing because then who will
>>>> ratify?  That is the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Further, our bylaws give the BOOK as our parliamentary authority that
>>>> members can study to know their rights.  Not opinions that are not part of
>>>> the book which would create shifting sands of member rights.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't assume something is ignored.  That presumes an intent
>>>> which is improper.  I have answered that question in many places that I
>>>> often forget where.  Just ask if something is not answered rather than
>>>> assume avoidance.
>>>>
>>>> *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 9:08 AM Richard Longstreth <
>>>> richard.longstreth at 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
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>> --

*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. *