[Lnc-business] can we just ratify it later?

[Alicia Mattson]

The other main idea being floated is to use some online mechanism to choose
a presidential ticket, but all other business will be at a later in-person
event in which a motion to ratify the online activity can be taken up.
Included in this idea is the question about RONR author team official
interpretation 2020-1.  Some discussions I've heard have suggested this
approach as a compromise offer between the options of all-online vs.
all-in-person.


1)  The LNC only gets to call one convention every two years, and we can't
dictate what a convention agenda will be.  If we call a convention, then
Convention Rule 1 specifies a starting agenda.  The convention delegates
control the agenda and can amend it as they wish with a 2/3 vote to suspend
that rule.  The LNC cannot dictate that only the presidential ticket may
happen on this particular day, and all other business is prohibited until
an in-person meeting.

The first-listed characteristic of a deliberative assembly on RONR p. 1 is
that the deliberative assembly "meets with freedom to act in concert,
meeting to determine, in full and free discussion, courses of action to be
taken in the name of the entire group."  Previously adopted bylaws/rules
can set some limits, but if a convention is called to order, the LNC has no
power to set additional limits, including some requirement that the
delegates agree to stop at a certain point and then adjourn to a future
in-person date.

If the LNC holds some sort of event at which it is dictating the items of
business, it is not a convention.

Given that Bylaws Article 14.1 says a presidential ticket nomination may
ONLY be made at a regular convention, nominating at a thing which is not a
convention is a serious matter.  The LNC has no power to decide that the
presidential ticket be chosen some other way.


2)  The next question would probably be, "Okay, so it's not a convention,
but if we use some sort of virtual process to make a selection and don't
call it a convention, then can the LNC call an in-person convention for a
later date and ratify the virtual selection?  Doesn't RONR official
interpretation 2020-1 say we can do that?"

What does RONR official interpretation 2020-1 say?

--------------------
2020-1  ELECTRONIC MEETINGS AND RATIFICATION

Q. Our bylaws do not authorize electronic meetings, and the rules in
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) are controlling. If we
nevertheless hold an electronic meeting, can actions taken by our officers
to carry out decisions made at that meeting be ratified during a subsequent
in-person meeting?

A. Yes, an assembly can ratify "action taken by officers, committees,
delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or
authority." [RONR (11th ed.), p. 124, ll. 34-35.] This includes the ability
to ratify action to carry out decisions made at an electronic meeting of a
body for which such meetings are not authorized. Similar actions taken by
an organization's staff can also be ratified. However, those who carry out
decisions made at an unauthorized electronic meeting do so at their own
risk; although the assembly can later ratify their actions at a proper
meeting of the organization, it is under no obligation to do so. [Cf. p.
348, ll. 19-23.]
--------------------

Note specifically that the final sentence of this answer is a cautionary
note, that carrying out such unauthorized decisions involves RISK, and the
later assembly is NOT OBLIGATED to ratify their actions.

The phrase used in this answer about actions "in excess of their
instructions" comes directly from a bullet list on p. 124-125 of RONR,
cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable.  Exceeding a
budget would in most organizations be an example of actions in excess of
their instructions which could be ratified.  But not everything is subject
to ratification.  Continuing to p. 125 we find a paragraph of other things
for which ratification is NOT applicable, and that list includes actions
"in violation of its own bylaws, except that a provision for a quorum in
the bylaws does not prevent it from ratifying action taken at a meeting
when no quorum was present."

If the action resulting from the invalid electronic meeting was, in and of
itself, a bylaw violation, then it cannot be later ratified.  We have a
bylaw saying that the presidential ticket nomination must happen at a
convention, and we cannot use ratify to cure the defect of it having
happened some other way.  As I noted above, some event called by the LNC in
which the agenda is limited by the LNC is not a convention.


3)  Next theory, "Well, I just think we should do it and ratify it later.
There are two states which have something to be done before July 15, and we
can argue that we had to.  Our delegates will ratify it anyway, and we all
move on."

<START POLITICAL COMMENT> Though I do not know the status of all legal
plans in the background, we have obtained some relief already in other
states, and I do HOPE that the reason it seems we haven't yet sought
judicial relief in those states is so that the plight of these two states
can be leverage to influence our decision here.  Even more so, I hope we've
already started seeking relief and I'm just not aware of it yet.<END
POLITICAL COMMENT>

Please note that the RONR description of a motion to ratify says, "The
motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main
motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that
cannot become valid until approved by the assembly."

I've heard it theorized on social media that the action taken at the
electronic event would be presumed valid until our delegates voted on the
motion to ratify, but RONR clearly says otherwise.  It says the action is
NOT valid until it is ratified.  Remember the risk warning given in the Q&A
above.

In the meantime we'd be putting our national officers and/or officers in
those two affiliates (depending on paperwork req'd by that state) in the
position of submitting paperwork to the state government attesting to
something that isn't valid because it hasn't yet been ratified.  I am not
an attorney, but this option does not seem to me that it would eliminate
risk related to these two states.

It is not a given that the delegates at a later in-person real convention
WOULD agree to ratify the decision made in the not-a-convention event.
RONR notes they are not obligated to.  If attendance at the real convention
reflects a preference for a different candidate, they might turn around and
nominate someone else.  Then some states might have proceeded with placing
Candidate A from the not-convention event on the ballot, and other states
will place Candidate B from the real convention on the ballot.

I just don't see things down this path that stand up to scrutiny.  I think
that to try to reduce risk in 2 states, we're creating risk in 50 states +
DC.

-Alicia