<div dir='auto'>I agree that how we each Define impossibility is playing a big part in this.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Erin Adams Region 7 alt.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2020 11:13 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">Sam, sell me a policy :)
<br>
<br>
For now, that's the questions I wanted addressed. I don't interpret the
<br>
authors opinion as you do but at least I understand where you and
<br>
presumably others are coming from.
<br>
<br>
The ultimate question is a guess or feeling on impossibility. Are we there
<br>
now or not? Do indicators show we are over the hump on infection or is
<br>
there a chance this will continue for a long period of time? The
<br>
interpretation authorizes the use of electronic meeting in case of
<br>
impossibility and that sounds like something we all agree on but where that
<br>
line is is another matter. Perhaps we should spend some time defining that
<br>
tomorrow.
<br>
<br>
Our motion has been passed for a total reschedule so this body does not
<br>
believe impossibility has been met as of last meeting. In talking with many
<br>
of you, however, that is not the message I'm receiving. I'm receiving a
<br>
message of hoping things are better down the road. Well, my Jake will tell
<br>
you, I don't like to cling to hope without evidence of possibility.
<br>
Unfortunately, in today's world, all we really have are government stats
<br>
which I really don't trust so this puts me in a hard place to form a
<br>
judgement call.
<br>
<br>
I'd encourage each member of this body to meditate more on that specific
<br>
question leading into tomorrow as we, to my knowledge, will have at least
<br>
one motion to ballot on the P/VP (which I'm only supportive of) and
<br>
possibly others (which I will have to see first). Be civil with each other
<br>
and hopefully this will be a mere memory once we win POTUS at the end of
<br>
the year (holding onto hope :) ).
<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, 08:45 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> Ignored implies seen... but enough on that. You now know I am perfectly
<br>
> willing to engage.
<br>
>
<br>
> We do reference RONR opinions on items in the book - i.e. what the authors
<br>
> meant. This is not that class of opinion. This is an opinion on how to
<br>
> violate RONR and the bylaws and get away with it due to a pandemic. And
<br>
> the only time that is justified is due to impossibility which we situation
<br>
> we do not have.
<br>
>
<br>
> That opinion will hold anyone time you want to violate something and get
<br>
> away with it. Better have good officers liability coverage though which is
<br>
> what they were also saying. You want to risk being liable? I don't.
<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 9:34 AM Richard Longstreth <
<br>
> richard.longstreth@lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
>> That's what I did because every time I asked, it was not responded to
<br>
>> (aka, ignored :) )
<br>
>>
<br>
>> When in interpreting the RONR then do we not reference those opinions?
<br>
>> I've always operated as them going together. Should the bylaws specifically
<br>
>> say that? Are there examples of organizations that specifically include the
<br>
>> opinions as authority as well? I've never heard of that before and it seems
<br>
>> like a stretch to outlawing the practice to me rather than being open to
<br>
>> the authoritative interpretation if that view is held.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Again, I am asking to form an understanding and out of personal
<br>
>> ignorance, not purposefully forming arguments. I've explicitly kept my
<br>
>> questions away from our current matter in trying to understand.
<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, 08:26 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br>
>> wrote:
<br>
>>
<br>
>>> Nearly anything can be ratified. However, bylaws cannot be violated
<br>
>>> even by unanimous consent. I posted that language up above.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> The ratification has to be held at an actual convention. The only thing
<br>
>>> this works for is P/VP not the whole thing because then who will ratify?
<br>
>>> That is the issue.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> Further, our bylaws give the BOOK as our parliamentary authority that
<br>
>>> members can study to know their rights. Not opinions that are not part of
<br>
>>> the book which would create shifting sands of member rights.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> Please don't assume something is ignored. That presumes an intent which
<br>
>>> is improper. I have answered that question in many places that I often
<br>
>>> forget where. Just ask if something is not answered rather than assume
<br>
>>> avoidance.
<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 9:08 AM Richard Longstreth <
<br>
>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>>> Copy paste from another thread. There is one question that seems not to
<br>
>>>> be 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
<br>
>>>> can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem
<br>
>>>> convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with
<br>
>>>> others around the party, including those in favor of postponment
<br>
>>>> acknowledge this. I want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a
<br>
>>>> little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems
<br>
>>>> to 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
<br>
>>>>> large
<br>
>>>>> the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> suspended:*
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> -
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> Constitution and bylaws: Your bylaws are a contract between
<br>
>>>>> members, and
<br>
>>>>> they can’t be suspended, no matter how great a vote to suspend them
<br>
>>>>> may 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
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> it is
<br>
>>>>> > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the
<br>
>>>>> party 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
<br>
>>>>> the
<br>
>>>>> > bylaws.</NS>
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > Though there is no pending question before us to give cause for a
<br>
>>>>> ruling,
<br>
>>>>> > let's suppose that there is intent to make a motion on Saturday
<br>
>>>>> which would
<br>
>>>>> > give such occasion, and this is the ruling we hear from the chair.
<br>
>>>>> I know
<br>
>>>>> > the chair will cut me off before I could say all of this in a
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> - 591
<br>
>>>>> > gives some "principles of interpretation" and I hear lots of people
<br>
>>>>> quote
<br>
>>>>> > the beginning of #1, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> case 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,
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> ambiguous,
<br>
>>>>> > it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other
<br>
>>>>> bylaws. ..."
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > Also note principle #2, "When a provision of the bylaws is
<br>
>>>>> susceptible to
<br>
>>>>> > two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another
<br>
>>>>> bylaw
<br>
>>>>> > provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken
<br>
>>>>> as the
<br>
>>>>> > true meaning."
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > Is it harmonious with our other bylaws to say that "place" includes
<br>
>>>>> an
<br>
>>>>> > online convention?
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > Well, our bylaws adopt RONR, which as I have noted before on RONR p.
<br>
>>>>> 97,
<br>
>>>>> > "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> gathering 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
<br>
>>>>> authorize
<br>
>>>>> > it, then our bylaws inherently prohibit it, and a bylaw amendment
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> may be
<br>
>>>>> > determined by...," yet we understood we needed to put separate and
<br>
>>>>> clear
<br>
>>>>> > language into our bylaws to allow electronic meetings for boards and
<br>
>>>>> > committees. Principle of interpretation #4 would apply here to say
<br>
>>>>> that
<br>
>>>>> > listing certain things serves to prohibit other things of the same
<br>
>>>>> class,
<br>
>>>>> > so authorizing electronic meetings only for boards and committees
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> to 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
<br>
>>>>> halls
<br>
>>>>> > do)
<br>
>>>>> > - not in the bylaws, but in our convention rules, the 30-token rule
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> other
<br>
>>>>> > bylaws/rules which are physical in nature.
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > I don't see that the principles of interpretation really give us a
<br>
>>>>> path 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
<br>
>>>>> that the
<br>
>>>>> > VERY FIRST SENTENCE of RONR begins (caps added by me for emphasis),
<br>
>>>>> "A
<br>
>>>>> > deliberative assembly - the kind of gathering to which parliamentary
<br>
>>>>> law is
<br>
>>>>> > generally understood to apply - has the following distinguishing
<br>
>>>>> > characteristics: [...] The group meets in a single room or area or
<br>
>>>>> under
<br>
>>>>> > equivalent conditions of opportunity for SIMULTANEOUS AURAL
<br>
>>>>> COMMUNICATION
<br>
>>>>> > AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS."
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > RONR p. 97 repeats the thought that an electronic meeting, "does not
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> those 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
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> only
<br>
>>>>> > flow one direction, and all others merely observe. Delegates were
<br>
>>>>> only
<br>
>>>>> > allowed to hear each other speak when the chair permitted it. Nor
<br>
>>>>> could we
<br>
>>>>> > use the chat room to communicate directly with each other. We
<br>
>>>>> couldn't see
<br>
>>>>> > who, or even how many were "present." By and large we had no idea
<br>
>>>>> 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
<br>
>>>>> to
<br>
>>>>> > exercise their fundamental rights. Each delegate was in an
<br>
>>>>> isolation 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,
<br>
>>>>> and
<br>
>>>>> > could not be a convention. The delegates have not ceded their
<br>
>>>>> rights in
<br>
>>>>> > this way.
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > When a subset of LNC members first evaluated electronic meeting
<br>
>>>>> options for
<br>
>>>>> > boards/committees, we thoroughly evaluataed the ability of
<br>
>>>>> participants to
<br>
>>>>> > know the status of other participants. Are they in the meeting at
<br>
>>>>> all? Is
<br>
>>>>> > their microphone muted? Can the participants see whose hands were
<br>
>>>>> raised
<br>
>>>>> > so we know who is being ignored? These features were very important
<br>
>>>>> to
<br>
>>>>> > prevent a participant from being admin-blocked from participation.
<br>
>>>>> The
<br>
>>>>> > Zoom-webinar configuration bulldozes all of those participant
<br>
>>>>> protections
<br>
>>>>> > as well.
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > I'm going to need something more concrete than "These aren't the
<br>
>>>>> droids you
<br>
>>>>> > are looking for," to be convinced that the chair's ruling is
<br>
>>>>> correct, and I
<br>
>>>>> > would enthusiastically vote to overturn such a ruling.
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>> > -Alicia
<br>
>>>>> >
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>