<div dir="ltr"><div>P.P.S. Since the number of sustaining members has been for some period of time over-reported (by whatever number of people happened to be sustaining members at the time they were marked as deceased) , a side effect of fixing this issue is that our sustaining membership counts on the next report will be reduced by that number.<br><br></div>If we were inclined to find out how many people that is, we could get a precise figure that out by checking the most recent round of monthly dumps. Nevada had 3. Georgia had 2. As of about a year ago, Virginia had 4. For a ballpark estimate though, extrapolate that pattern for all 50 affiliates, and we will probably see on the order of 100-150 sustaining members drop off the counts due to this correction.<br><br><div>-Alicia<br></div><div><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Alicia Mattson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>P.S. In the hour since I sent this message, Robert has been able to find and fix the query error that resulted in the deceased, non-life-member, last-donated-in-2011 record being marked as a sustaining member...along with 2 other similar records in the NV file. The fix will correct all such similar circumstances in all state data dumps, not just the NV file. It's the same process that's run on all the records.<br><br></div>One mystery solved! As I get time to do so, I'll work with staff to figure out the other things that look odd to me.<br><br></div><div>Thanks for the quick fix, Robert!<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div>-Alicia<br><br><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Alicia Mattson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Mr. Benedict wrote: "Robert Kraus and I interpreted the bylaws to mean that the
convention registration counts as Sustaining membership. Obviously
Alicia Mattson sees things differently."<br><br></div>Except that wasn't the original conclusion. I only know about this because I was initially contacted by Robert on the 16th with the news Mr. Craig had been lapsed but had renewed. The question of whether the convention package purchase counts was brought up after that original message which told me that he had lapsed.<br><br></div>Since there seemed to be confusion about how this question should be handled, I asked for a copy of the March monthly data dump from Georgia so I could see how other convention package purchasers were designated. Other 2014 package purchasers from GA have made other contributions since then, so I didn't spot any other records that were exactly parallel to this question.<br><br></div>Looking at the records, though, I found a number of other inconsistent data points such that I'm not confident that looking at our data dumps can answer the question of what has been the standard practice. This is a separate issue that I expect to take up offline with staff to try to find whatever systemic causes there are and get to a resolution for the future.<br><br>As quick examples of data issues I intend to follow up on, we have a policy which says specifically that convention package purchases do not extend benefits lapse dates or count toward association levels. This policy was followed for some convention package purchasers, but others seem to have had their benefits lapse date extended when they purchased a convention package. The Georgia file had people marked as sustaining members whose last gift dates spanned the range of March 2014 to April 2015, which is more than 12 months, and none of those are life members. I also looked at the March data dump for Nevada. I saw similar inconsistencies regarding whether a convention package extends the benefits lapse date. The Nevada file had someone marked as a sustaining member who is not a life member, whose last gift date was in 2011, and is deceased.<br><div><div><div><div><div>
<div><div><br></div><div>My conclusion is that even in several areas where staff and I agree on the application of the rule of sustaining membership or benefits lapse date (which are different things), the data records show those rules have not been consistently applied. Thus the data files can't answer the question of what our past practice has been, because past practice has been inconsistent.<br><br>Those questions arising from the data dumps don't have to be solved this week.<br><br>We just need
to immediately deal with the question of whether the convention package
should count under the bylaw as written, regardless of how staff may or may not have interpreted
it in the past. Once the LNC decides how the rule is supposed to work, that
should be the practice going forward.<span><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888"><div>-Alicia<br><br></div></font></span><div><div><div><br><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Wes Benedict <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Robert Kraus and I interpreted the bylaws to mean that the
convention registration counts as Sustaining membership. Obviously
Alicia Mattson sees things differently. <br>
<br>
Sustaining membership is different from the benefits lapse date. It
is confusing.<br>
<br>
I didn't design our complicated membership plan, but I did put forth
a genuine effort to explain it on page 15 of this LP News:<br>
<a href="http://www.lp.org/files/lp_news/2014-4_LP_News.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.lp.org/files/lp_news/2014-4_LP_News.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br>
<small><small>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.<br>
<b>New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314</b><br>
<a href="tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232" value="+12023330008" target="_blank">(202) 333-0008 ext. 232</a>, <a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://facebook.com/libertarians" target="_blank">facebook.com/libertarians</a> @LPNational<br>
Join the Libertarian Party at: <a href="http://lp.org/membership" target="_blank">http://lp.org/membership</a></small></small><br>
<br>
</div><div><div>
<div>On 4/28/2015 5:25 AM, Alicia Mattson
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div dir="ltr">Since I know that some humans have a tendency to
stop reading an email if it's more than two paragraphs long, let
me point out that at the end of this message I am requesting
sponsors for an expedited email ballot.<br>
<div><br>
Previously this term it has been necessary to deal with the
reality that LNC members are to be sustaining members of the
Party. In the previous case, I raised a point of order
because an at-large LNC member who had been a sustaining
member at the convention when he was elected had since allowed
his sustaining status to lapse. At its December, 2014
meeting, the LNC re-appointed that member to the seat after
the sustaining status was reinstated.<br>
<br>
<div>As the Secretary has specific duties related to
credentialing questions and determinations of sustaining
membership counts, now it is my job to once again raise a
point of order regarding a member's status.<br>
<br>
<div>For convenience, I have copied the relevant bylaw
provisions below:<br>
</div>
<div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>
Bylaws Article 5.3:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">"Sustaining member” is any
Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in
the prior twelve months, or who is a life member.<br>
</div>
<br>
Bylaws Article 5.6:<br>
<div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><br>
Only sustaining members shall be counted for delegate
apportionment and National Committee representation.
Only sustaining members shall be eligible to hold
National Party office or be a candidate for President or
Vice-President.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Bylaws Article 8.4:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">A National Committee member
shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not
be the candidate of any party except the Party or an
affiliate.<br>
</div>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>During our 3/29/15 Phoenix meeting, Doug Craig was
declared elected to the at-large vacancy. On 4/16/15,
Robert Kraus informed me, Wes Benedict and Nick Sarwark that
Doug Craig had lapsed but that he had renewed on 4/16/15.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I asked for clarity on what date Mr. Craig had lapsed
because it matters procedurally whether the lapse occurred
before or after the 3/29/15 meeting in which the LNC elected
him to the at-large vacancy.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Raiser's Edge records indicate that his last
sustaining-level donation had been on 7/26/13. Since then
the only transactions had been his purchase of a convention
package on 5/6/14, and then his sustaining-level renewal on
4/16/15.<br>
<br>
</div>
I look at Bylaw Article 5.3 and see that a person must have
"given" at least $25 in the prior 12 months, or be a life
member. Since Mr. Craig is not a life member, the question is
whether he had given at least $25 in the 12 months prior to
3/29/15 when the LNC acted to fill the vacancy. To me,
"giving" money is a very different thing from a purchase of
goods/services such as a convention package or a t-shirt, so I
do not think that the convention package qualifies towards
sustaining membership.<br>
<br>
My conclusion is that Mr. Craig's sustaining membership lapsed
on 7/26/14 (one year after his 7/26/13 donation), and that it
wasn't renewed until 4/16/15. That would mean he was not a
sustaining member on 3/29/15 when the LNC took action
regarding the vacancy.<br>
<br>
Given my conclusion that he was not a sustaining member at the
time, I believe the motion adopted to name him to the at-large
vacancy is null and void because it violated the bylaws which
require sustaining membership for LNC members.<br>
<br>
For convenient reference, relevant citations from Robert's
Rules are below:<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<div>RONR p. 430-431, 439 make it clear that in an election,
members may only vote for eligible nominees, thus votes cast
for an ineligible person are actually illegal votes.<br>
<br>
</div>
RONR p. 445, regarding challenging an election, states:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">"Otherwise, an election may be
contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule
is that such a point of order must be timely, as described
on page 250, line 30 to page 251, line 2. If an election is
disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the
provisions on page 349, lines 21–28, apply. Other exceptions
to the general timeliness requirement are those that come
within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9–23,
in which cases a point of order can be made at any time
during the continuance in office of the individual declared
elected. For example: <br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"> • If an individual does
not meet the qualifications for the post established in the
bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a
main motion that conflicts with the bylaws...."<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>Here is the relevant portion of the cross-referenced
passage on RONR p. 251:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">"The only exceptions to
the rule that a point of order must be made at the
time of the breach arise in connection with breaches
that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point
of order can be made at any time during the
continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind
occur when: <br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"> a) a main motion
has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or
constitution) of the organization or assembly,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><i>[items (b) through (e)
snipped for brevity]</i><br>
<br>
In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a
point of order since any action so taken is null and
void. <br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>My conclusion is that according to our rules, Mr.
Craig's election was in violation of the bylaws, thus
that motion is null and void and we still have an
at-large vacancy. Now that Mr. Craig has renewed his
sustaining membership, he is eligible to be properly
elected to that vacancy.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>We just need to proceed to act again to fill the
vacancy. I suspect that the outcome of a second vote
now will be the same as it was then, but we should go
through the process of doing it properly so as to remove
any cloud of doubt. Making the effort to do it properly
will show respect to the rules, and it settles the
question now so that it won't come up later if a
contentious vote is decided by a margin of Mr. Craig's
vote<span></span><span></span>.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>At this time I'm raising a point of order that Mr.
Craig's election on 3/29/15 is null and void because it
violated the bylaw requirement that LNC members must be
sustaining members of the party.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
</font></span></div>
</div>
<div>Unfortunately, I am not bringing this up at the most
ideal time. My to-do list following the Phoenix meeting was
much larger than usual. When this was first brought to my
attention, I didn't have the bandwidth to fully process it
immediately, and it just got added to my to-do list. If the
chair or I had brought this matter to you earlier, we would
have had more breathing room to address this before our May
3 electronic meeting.<br>
<br>
I was just thinking we could address it on May 3, but as I
started writing this message it occurred to me that the
electronic meetings are special meetings, so we can't add
agenda items at the last minute. We could address a
credentialing question of who is eligible to vote during the
meeting, but we couldn't add an agenda item for filling a
vacancy.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is still an option for the full LNC to address the
issue before then, though. Mail ballots can end early <u>if
all LNC members will promptly vote or specifically abstain
rather than waiting the full 10 days</u>. With
cooperation from all of you, we can still finish an email
ballot before May 3. <br>
<br>
I spoke in favor of another candidate for this position, but
I'm willing to co-sponsor an email ballot so the LNC can
have a chance to resolve the matter before our May 3
meeting.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm asking that either the chair sponsor, or 3 other LNC
members promptly co-sponsor with me an email ballot to elect
Doug Craig to the at-large vacancy created by Evan McMahon's
resignation.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>-Alicia<br>
<br>
</div>
<span></span></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span><pre>_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>