[Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 200531-1 APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE CHAIR CONCERNING REMOVAL OF DANIEL HAYES FROM THE COC

Tue Jun 2 06:28:41 EDT 2020

This point becomes all the more important as we hear how our Chair
pressured the new CoC chair.  Is she "insubordinate" now too?

*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 Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:27 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Now that the chair has responded (in another thread) I will speak to my
> motion.
>
> the Chair's response misses the point.  He shows where he appointed past
> members without objection.  No one disputes that because those members were
> recommended by the CoC.  That is the whole point.  He does not get to
> unilaterally appoint members per our Policy Manual.  Mr. Bishop-Henchman
> states that this does not make it a joint appointment but it must certainly
> does since it limits the Chair's authority.  RONR is clear that the chair
> cannot unilaterally remove a member of a committee unless they had the
> power to unilaterally appoint.  I will repost the point that Ms. Mattson
> made on this already:
>
> ==We have two entities here which jointly appoint non-LNC members to
> the COC.  RONR addresses removal when an appointment is made by one
> person. RONR addresses removal when it's made by an assembly like the LNC.
> It doesn't really go into the scenario in which two entities have to agree
> for an appointment.
>
> What's the most reasonable approach for how such an appointment is
> reversed?
>
> If the two entities are considered together to be the appointing body,
> one entity is not a majority of the appointing body.  Both entities have
> to agree to get to that majority threshold for the appointment.
>
> To reverse an appointment requires a motion to Rescind or to
> Amend Something Previously Adopted.  These require a majority with notice,
> a majority of the entire membership, or a 2/3 vote.  None of these
> thresholds
> can be met with just the LNC Chair without the COC.
>
> The chair seems to be taking the position that it requires consent
> from both to appoint, therefore if one of the two entities later
> withdraws consent, the appointment is reversed.  This is not consistent
> with how RONR
> says committee appointments are reversed.  But the equal application
> of this logic would say that, hypothetically speaking, if the COC removed
> its consent for a different non-LNC member of the COC, that person would
> no longer be on the committee, either, even if the Chair disagreed, right?
> Or if the LNC had made an LNC-member appointment with a 9-8 vote, that any
> of the 9 could later withdraw their consent and reverse the outcome.  We
> all know that one person can't later withdraw the deciding vote to
> unilaterally kill a collective decision of the LNC.  Now that the question
> is squarely in front of us and I'm having to develop a firm opinion about
> it, I'm having trouble seeing the merits of this view of how our
> joint-appointment policy works.==
>
> Mr. Richard Brown concurs with Ms. Mattson's reasoning.
>
> I will further add, though this is not directly to the procedure of the
> issue, but more to the justice of it.  Mr. Sarwark had been publicly
> threatening Mr. Hayes with removal for a few weeks now which is an improper
> way to treat a volunteer.  Anyone on FB is sure to remember the ominous
> "Insubordination is a gamble.  Make your bets wisely" post a few days
> before the removal.  Disagreeing with Mr. Sarwark who himself is
> insubordinate to the decisions of the LNC and CoC is not insubordination,
> and such tactics belong in the authoritarian old parties.
>
> *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, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:11 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> The proverbs say one man seems right until another argues his case
>>
>> I just ask you read subsequent arguments with an open mind.  I have not
>> yet spoken to my motion.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 4:34 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via
>> Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn’t sure if my first email was sent, but agree with Joes reasoning so
>>> vote yes. Also, like Jo I agree these details should be made clearer for
>>> future situations.
>>>
>>> Alex Merced
>>> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
>>>
>>> > On May 31, 2020, at 7:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I’m reserving my vote and argument for one day to give the chair his
>>> > privilege.
>>> >
>>> > I would encourage others to do the same
>>> >
>>> > I would also encourage members to seek the counsel of Richard Brown
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 4:38 PM <joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I vote yes, to sustain the ruling. The language of the policy manual
>>> is
>>> >> that the non-LNC members are "selected by the LNC Chair" on the
>>> >> recommendation of the COC. There is no explicit language governing
>>> >> dismissals.
>>> >>
>>> >> While I would agree that a new member would need recommendation by
>>> the COC
>>> >> (although this may become moot due to a pending motion), our policy
>>> manual
>>> >> chose to be silent on the mechanism of dismissal and in that case it
>>> rests
>>> >> with who held appointment power. Presumably a Chair could refuse to
>>> appoint
>>> >> someone recommended by the COC, and the result would be a vacant
>>> seat. The
>>> >> Chair therefore ultimately selects the members.
>>> >>
>>> >> In an analogous situation (President's removal of an appointee who had
>>> >> received Senate confirmation for a fixed term, with no explicit
>>> language
>>> >> governing dismissals), the U.S. Supreme Court held in Myers v. United
>>> >> States that the President may remove such a person. Congress since has
>>> >> deliberately included such language when the agency involved is
>>> intended to
>>> >> be independent of the executive branch, vs. when it is intended to be
>>> >> subordinate to the executive (or legislative). That case incidentally
>>> >> officially exonerated President Andrew Johnson, whose impeachment was
>>> >> pretextually about such a removal without Senate consent.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've never been quite clear whether the COC is intended to be
>>> independent
>>> >> or subordinate, as they can act independently in some, but not all,
>>> >> decisions delegated to them. This lack of clarity also mitigates
>>> against
>>> >> insulating members from removal. I would support efforts to clarify it
>>> >> further, however.
>>> >>
>>> >> JBH
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 31, 2020 4:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>>> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> EMAIL BALLOT 200531-1  APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE CHAIR CONCERNING
>>> >> REMOVAL OF DANIEL HAYES FROM THE COC
>>> >>
>>> >> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>> >>
>>> >> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by June 7, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm
>>> >> Pacific time.
>>> >>
>>> >> Co-Sponsors:  Goldstein, Harlos, Longstreth, Phillips, Smith
>>> >>
>>> >> =============================================
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Motion: The Chair has ruled he can not only remove Daniel Hayes as CoC
>>> >> chair but also from the committee entirely.  Harlos appeals from the
>>> >> ruling
>>> >> of the chair that he can remove Hayes from the committee without CoC
>>> >> approval since appointment required CoC approval.
>>> >>
>>> >> =============================================
>>> >>
>>> >> THRESHOLD REQUIRED:  A majority vote is required to overturn the
>>> ruling of
>>> >> the chair.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VntkXkkuQouUiWbt9bnI_TjSMKDiTaDDpvsYtTmJdhE/edit#gid=1053534570
>>> .
>>> >>
>>> >> Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for
>>> verification.
>>> >> You
>>> >> can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the
>>> bottom of
>>> >> the sheet.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please notify me of any discrepancies.
>>> >>
>>> >> *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me
>>> know.  *
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >
>>> > *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.
>>> *
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> *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. *
>>
>>