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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms. Mattsoin that certainly gives me pause though I think I can make a
contrary argument though I will readily admit that it is not airtight.  Let
me summarize, IF we take the impossibility option as viable with regards to
only the presidential ticket, then we have some latitude to conform to the
bylaws as closely as possible, and I think that would allow us to bifurcate
the convention.  A big IF I realize.  I can see my way clear on that point,
but I respect anyone who cannot.  If I have to choose among a bifurcated
convention, all online, and all in person, I will choose all in person
because in order of clarity of legality - despite the frankly wrong advice
of our counsel (and I seriously want to see the written opinion of that
parliamentarian as alleged as should everyone on the LNC) - is as follows:
1.  In-person convention - no bylaws issues at all, fully legal
2.  Bifurcated convention - questionable whether impossibility carve-out is
justifiable with various legal issues
3.  Online convention - NO bylaws justification whatsoever and it is
without dispute under our bylaws that it is not impossible to have an
in-person convention

While depending on debate, I am still inclined to reluctantly support #2,
it is reluctant and I am coming back to number 1 as the only purely ethical
solution.  Number 3 is absolutely out of the question, and if the LNC goes
that route, I will be joining with some members to fill a JC appeal.  We
already have commitments for half of the signatures required without any
mass effort.  I am confident it will be trivial to get the signatures, but
I will not sit by if this body violates our bylaws with impunity.

I have tried to say over and over that bylaws cannot be suspended no matter
the vote in favor, and it falls on deaf ears.

That 2020-1 interpretation has been twisted by most into a shell of its
former self, and primarily that people fail to recognize that it is not
given carte balance to do something and say it is okay.  It is just saying
how you "MIGHT" get away with something illegal under one's bylaws.

I hope we have good Officer and Director Liability insurance is all I can
say about this point particularly if we choose number 3.  The delegates
CANNOT RATIFY A VIOLATION OF OUR BYLAWS absent indisputable evidence of
impossibility.

If the choice c

*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 10:13 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
>