<div dir='auto'>From what I understand Richard Brown has confirmed this. He is my expert of choice personally.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2020 11:08 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Copy paste from another thread. There is one question that seems not to be
<br>
addressed in all this:
<br>
<br>
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings.
<br>
However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to
<br>
the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply
<br>
missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are
<br>
brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts
<br>
stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to
<br>
take it off the table for me.
<br>
<br>
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can
<br>
be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced
<br>
that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around
<br>
the party, including those in favor of postponment acknowledge this. I want
<br>
to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not
<br>
trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
<br>
<br>
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to
<br>
indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an
<br>
electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly
<br>
and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific
<br>
question.
<br>
<br>
Richard Longstreth
<br>
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
<br>
Libertarian National Committee
<br>
richard.longstreth@lp.org
<br>
931.538.9300
<br>
<br>
Sent from my Mobile Device
<br>
<br>
On Fri, May 8, 2020, 02:50 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br>
lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> All I can say is - ^^^^that. Ms. Mattson is absolutely correct on all
<br>
> counts.
<br>
>
<br>
> there is ZERO ambiguity here. I would add provision that Ms. Mattson
<br>
> didn't....
<br>
>
<br>
> *Page 263*
<br>
>
<br>
> *Rules contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended - no matter how large
<br>
> the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may
<br>
> be.*
<br>
>
<br>
> I would add... no matter how much the chair dislikes it.
<br>
>
<br>
> I keep hearing well some large group of members want an all online
<br>
> convention. Note the quote above. It doesn't matter. No matter how the
<br>
> large the vote, the bylaws are the bylaws.
<br>
>
<br>
> I like the way Roberts for Dummies puts it:
<br>
>
<br>
> Know when you can’t suspend the rules
<br>
>
<br>
> Unless you provide a rule to allow you to make exceptions, you probably
<br>
> don’t want to have any rules at all. But some rules *cannot be suspended:*
<br>
>
<br>
> -
<br>
>
<br>
> Constitution and bylaws: Your bylaws are a contract between members, and
<br>
> they can’t be suspended, no matter how great a vote to suspend them may
<br>
> be.
<br>
> Nor can they be suspended because the rule is just too inconvenient.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> *In Liberty,*
<br>
>
<br>
> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
<br>
> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br>
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
<br>
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:47 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
<br>
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> > <NS> It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the
<br>
> > Libertarian National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that
<br>
> “place”
<br>
> > in the bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it is
<br>
> > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the party
<br>
> to
<br>
> > travel to a physical location. As such, a virtual convention held on
<br>
> > Memorial Day weekend would be a proper convention and compliant with the
<br>
> > bylaws.</NS>
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Though there is no pending question before us to give cause for a ruling,
<br>
> > let's suppose that there is intent to make a motion on Saturday which
<br>
> would
<br>
> > give such occasion, and this is the ruling we hear from the chair. I
<br>
> know
<br>
> > the chair will cut me off before I could say all of this in a meeting, so
<br>
> > I'll hope you'll consider my thinking in advance.
<br>
> >
<br>
> >
<br>
> > 1) When the argument is that we should make an interpretation, it is
<br>
> > important to not stop reading RONR passages too early. RONR p. 588 - 591
<br>
> > gives some "principles of interpretation" and I hear lots of people quote
<br>
> > the beginning of #1, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its
<br>
> > bylaws" and then stop reading there. Usually the arguments come from
<br>
> > ignoring the first three sentences of the paragraph, but in this case
<br>
> let's
<br>
> > focus on the fourth sentence.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the
<br>
> > meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot
<br>
> > change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must
<br>
> exist
<br>
> > before there is any occasion for interpretation. If a bylaw is ambiguous,
<br>
> > it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other bylaws.
<br>
> ..."
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Also note principle #2, "When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to
<br>
> > two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw
<br>
> > provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as
<br>
> the
<br>
> > true meaning."
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Is it harmonious with our other bylaws to say that "place" includes an
<br>
> > online convention?
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Well, our bylaws adopt RONR, which as I have noted before on RONR p. 97,
<br>
> > "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or
<br>
> > board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called
<br>
> > meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering
<br>
> in
<br>
> > one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is
<br>
> > present."
<br>
> >
<br>
> > With that in our parliamentary authority, if our bylaws do not authorize
<br>
> > it, then our bylaws inherently prohibit it, and a bylaw amendment would
<br>
> > have to be adopted to authorize it.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Our bylaws also say that the LNC meets "at such times and places as may
<br>
> be
<br>
> > determined by...," yet we understood we needed to put separate and clear
<br>
> > language into our bylaws to allow electronic meetings for boards and
<br>
> > committees. Principle of interpretation #4 would apply here to say that
<br>
> > listing certain things serves to prohibit other things of the same class,
<br>
> > so authorizing electronic meetings only for boards and committees would
<br>
> > preclude it for conventions.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > We did not adopt language to authorize it for conventions, and
<br>
> interpreting
<br>
> > the word "place" regarding the calling of conventions is certainly not
<br>
> > sufficient to do it.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > We have other phrases in our bylaws which only exist with a physical
<br>
> > location convention hall, such as:
<br>
> > - "All members must wear the identification badge issued upon
<br>
> registration
<br>
> > in order to be admitted to the Convention hall." (what must I wear to
<br>
> the
<br>
> > virtual convention?)
<br>
> > - our bylaws speak of delegates, "who are temporarily or permanently
<br>
> absent
<br>
> > from the floor" (cyberspace does not have a floor, but convention halls
<br>
> > do)
<br>
> > - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, the 30-token rule for
<br>
> > nominations involves the "affixing of signatures to a nominating
<br>
> petition"
<br>
> > which is a physical interaction
<br>
> > - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, it calls for voice
<br>
> votes
<br>
> > which are absurd in an electronic meeting
<br>
> >
<br>
> > There are likely other instances, but you get the point that the
<br>
> > interpretation of "place" as being virtual is NOT in harmony with other
<br>
> > bylaws/rules which are physical in nature.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I don't see that the principles of interpretation really give us a path
<br>
> to
<br>
> > interpret that "place" includes a virtual meeting.
<br>
> >
<br>
> >
<br>
> > 2) Let's get more basic than that, though. On PAGE ONE, we see that the
<br>
> > VERY FIRST SENTENCE of RONR begins (caps added by me for emphasis), "A
<br>
> > deliberative assembly - the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law
<br>
> is
<br>
> > generally understood to apply - has the following distinguishing
<br>
> > characteristics: [...] The group meets in a single room or area or under
<br>
> > equivalent conditions of opportunity for SIMULTANEOUS AURAL COMMUNICATION
<br>
> > AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS."
<br>
> >
<br>
> > RONR p. 97 repeats the thought that an electronic meeting, "does not lose
<br>
> > its character as a deliberative assembly (see pp. 1–2) so long as the
<br>
> > meetings provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for
<br>
> simultaneous
<br>
> > aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those
<br>
> of
<br>
> > meetings held in one room or area."
<br>
> >
<br>
> > RONR p. 5 (beginning principle) lists principal types of deliberative
<br>
> > assemblies as including a convention. If there's no simultaneous aural
<br>
> > communication, it's not a deliberative assembly, and it's not a
<br>
> convention.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > Besides the other serious problems, the Zoom-webinar which was tested
<br>
> > earlier this week did NOT allow for simultaneous aural communication
<br>
> among
<br>
> > all participants. The configuration is designed for information to only
<br>
> > flow one direction, and all others merely observe. Delegates were only
<br>
> > allowed to hear each other speak when the chair permitted it. Nor could
<br>
> we
<br>
> > use the chat room to communicate directly with each other. We couldn't
<br>
> see
<br>
> > who, or even how many were "present." By and large we had no idea what
<br>
> > other delegates were doing.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > This configuration fails to meet a mandatory requirement of a
<br>
> deliberative
<br>
> > assembly. It so egregiously undermines the ability of the delegates to
<br>
> > exercise their fundamental rights. Each delegate was in an isolation
<br>
> cage,
<br>
> > limited to information the chair decided to give us. That was not a
<br>
> valid
<br>
> > deliberative assembly, was not a meeting of a deliberative assembly, and
<br>
> > could not be a convention. The delegates have not ceded their rights in
<br>
> > this way.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > When a subset of LNC members first evaluated electronic meeting options
<br>
> for
<br>
> > boards/committees, we thoroughly evaluataed the ability of participants
<br>
> to
<br>
> > know the status of other participants. Are they in the meeting at all?
<br>
> Is
<br>
> > their microphone muted? Can the participants see whose hands were raised
<br>
> > so we know who is being ignored? These features were very important to
<br>
> > prevent a participant from being admin-blocked from participation. The
<br>
> > Zoom-webinar configuration bulldozes all of those participant protections
<br>
> > as well.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I'm going to need something more concrete than "These aren't the droids
<br>
> you
<br>
> > are looking for," to be convinced that the chair's ruling is correct,
<br>
> and I
<br>
> > would enthusiastically vote to overturn such a ruling.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > -Alicia
<br>
> >
<br>
>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>