PROOSAL U

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

Not proposing anything.  This is just for thought.  Is attempting

to change the governance system of an organization

an amendment to its Bylaws or perhaps approaching a revision,

an actual revision or could it require a giant substitute?  IMO,

Proposal U is suggesting a major overhaul, a change in governance

and that is a revision. 

If it is a revision, an  explicit authorization is necessary.

Unlike the 11th edition of RONR, 12 says a revision needs prior explicit

authorization.  If it would be an extensive change involving a whole

section or group of sections, it could require a substantial substitute.

12th EDITION, PAGES 561/562, 57:4 and 57:5

57:4  Sometimes a more extensive change is proposed involving the

submission of an entire section, group of sections, or article.  In such

a case, often only a few separated passages are actually involved in the

changes, and they are offered in the form of a single proposed substitute

in order to avoid time-consuming separate action on each change. The

text of the substitute should then be given with the notice of proposed

amendment, or the notice should delineate each of the actual changes,

and only changes within the scope of those contained in the substitute

can be considered.  Portions of the substitute which remain as in the existing

version cannot be amended, since they involve areas for which no notice

of proposed change was given.

57:5 General Revisions: Changes of the bylaws that are so extensive and general

that they are scattered throughout the bylaws should be effected through the

substitution of an entirely new set of bylaws, called a revision.  Notice of such a

revision is notice that a new document will be submitted that will be open to

amendment as fully as if the society were adopting bylaws for the first time. 

In other words, in the case of a revision, the assembly is not confined to

consideration of only the points of change included in the proposed revision

as submitted by the committee that has drafted it.  The revision can be

perfected by first degree and second degree amendments, but as in the

case of any other bylaws amendment, the old document is not pending;

and therefore, while the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the 

old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to

retaining it in a changed form.  Consideration of a revision of the bylaws 

is in order only when prepared by a committee that has been properly

authorized to draft it either by the membership or by an executive board

that has the power to refer such matters to a committee. (2)

(2) A proposal to substitute a new set of bylaws that is submitted by

anyone other than such an authorized committee is not improper, but it

is not treated as a general revision.  In such a case, only changes

within the scope of those contained in the substitute can be considered,

as described in the previous paragraph (57:4)

Proposal U is seeking a Revision.  Because of the above RONR citations,

neither the LNC nor the membership has authorized the Bylaws Committee

to conduct a revision, therefore I would voice a point of  order.

[Secretary LNC]

Thank you Ms Arrowood. I will note this item has pending Point of Order for when it comes up on agenda.

--
Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/1369678105.10294253.1682985535034.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

--

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

Since there appears to be parliamentary shenanigans afoot, I am providing a less perfect alternative to consider as an alternative/amendment that falls within the same level of amendment that we are considering elsewhere.  Attached.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wn2hW6gEBna%3DOUW-%2BbtpZ4KbBHm-qt9V613Z52aav5A%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, it's not appropriate to characterize a point of order whether or not we are operating within our rules as "parliamentary shenanigans" - Ms.  Arrowwood's point of order was perfectly in bounds.  

Are you withdrawing your prior motion and submitting a new one or are you giving notice of a substitute to be considered as an amendment to the other proposal provided it is found in order?  You can't give a contingent substitute.

Let me know what you want to do and I'll let you know the proper way to do it.

One thing being concerned about a revision most definitely is not is "parliamentary shenanigans."

[Ken Moellman]

I would like to put it forward as another proposal, that should be considered if the first is ruled out of order or fails for some other technical reason.

I apologize, as I am definitely a bit frustrated. Not just with this proposal, but generally with how this committee has been going.  In most committees I've been on, there's been an intentional push to create consensus. That does not appear to be the case with this committee. And it doesn't have to be; I just believe it makes for better proposals and more-functional boards.

As such, I put forward my proposals. And I put a lot of time and effort into trying to craft out a particular balance. This alternative does the same thing, but far less elegantly and will inherently require further amendment in 2026 -- just for the sake of being compliant with RONR. 

IMO, this is where RONR detractors get their ammo. Notice is 100% on us to provide, which we have already declared an intent to provide better notice even though the bylaws do not currently require it. Members in convention should have the final say. 

We have a mostly-new national board, based upon tossing out leadership what has not worked for 10, 25, 50 years. I think a similar change to bylaws may actually be favored by our current membership. Do they want the same basic structure that has failed us for 50 years, or do they want something different? 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, her point of order was not about notice.  My decision NOT to unilaterally rule out of order was based on my own sense that the fact that we are not required to give notice.  You completely misread what was said I believe.  This Committee is running how committees are supposed to run and in the hours people put into the proposals in actual meetings, I think your characterization is more than uncharitable both to the committee and to me personally (including the numerous hours I put in behind the scenes to make things run smoothly).  I have felt every proposal put out was workshopped very well, and this committee is running very very well.   When it comes to consensus, there has been absolutely NO indication that anyone else wants to gut the entire LNC.  You are entitled to make radical proposals, though honestly you should have disclosed that to the appointing body because they did ask.

And you have mischaracterized what the current LNC is doing.  Our basic structure has not failed us.  The system is rigged.  

But back to procedure, this is what you need to do.  You need to keep it in your hip pocket as a substitute (and I will link it as such) if your original motion is heard.  IF it is not, then you need to propose it afresh on this list and I will assign it a letter.  We have plenty of time, it will get heard.

I am going to give you a piece of advice.  It may be unwelcome.  As Mr. Bracco said.  Read the room.  And remember if you think this committee is being unreceptive to something you want, you can always try to suspend the rules and move from the floor.  But you have every right to make whatever proposals you wish.  Just ask yourself if you think this committee is likely to support and if not, if it is respectful of their time that they are giving up on every other Thursday.  Perhaps the support is there and has just been silent.  But I have not seen it. 

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/2cd5bdfac5063218844eaa735a81b9a3%40lpky.org.

[Secretary LNC]

PS: I will remind you to resubmit if your original proposal is not heard.  Between the two of us, I am sure it will get resubmitted.  But you cannot have a contingent proposal - either way though you will get what you want heard, it is just a matter of how we get there.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

PSS:  I just noted something.  You can move your original proposal FROM THE FLOOR and be perfectly compliant.  Of course you would need to suspend the rules and rally support independently but there is a way to do it without the strictures of committee rules if you wish.  I wanted to be sure you knew you had that right.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

I actually don't believe I would have that right, to bring it from the floor, if it is classified as a revision. 

I would like to have it as a separate proposal. Based on how everything else has been going, I suspect the committee won't hear the actual debate on the original proposal. I would like to make my pitch. If the committee votes it down, then so be it. 

The debate over the structure of the LNC has been on-going for decades. Changes have happened. At one time, we had 20 regions and (from what I can tell) no at-larges. Our method of electing At-Larges has changed. We've got another proposal to eliminate regional representatives altogether. There's been extra-conventional debate over the efficacy of larger boards versus the representation on smaller boards. 

The system is rigged, yes, and therefore we must be willing and able to adapt to changes, or try new approaches, to get around that rigged game to the best of our ability. There's a 10-year cycle in this party. This is the 3rd iteration of the loop I've been in, and it's always the same; nothing new, just new faces. At some point, it feels a whole lot like Groundhog Day.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmjwtMvzZPnVUZY13mXO0%2BCuf4ZE%3DxUbODU-G96sOX7pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, yes you do.

Let me try to explain.  A "committee" has privileges, so a revision has to be authorized.  A member submission that is a revision DOES NOT.  As long as notice is complied with.  We don't have notice provisions.  So you ABSOLUTELY can bring it from the floor.  Please read the footnote in that section I referred to and that Ms. Arrowwood referred to.

The way the system is rigged has absolutely nothing to do with our structure - but that is my opinion.

I will put forth then your proposal as a separate proposal and assign it a number accordingly.  You can withdraw it if the other one is heard and passes.

THERE IS NO PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE REGIONALS.  Mr. Bracco said he "read the room" and was not proposing it.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

You actually do have that right. Definition of a revision vs. amendments is in RONR and is therefore suspendable.

We did exactly that in LPCO when we combined the Constitution and Bylaws, and we did it that way precisely to avoid it being called a revision even though we had a convincing argument that it was not.

The rigging of the electoral system, while it exists, is mostly outside the purview of the LPUS and far more within the states, and doesn't have much impact upon the internal structure of the LNC.

Yeah, we get the frustration. I myself have seen it for over two decades. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if we have a lone dictator, a pure Athenian Democracy, or three dozen monkeys at typewriters, we're not going to get the Shakespeare we want without good people within the structure to work towards that end, so we can unrig the system and have a fighting chance. That's what Reno was all about.

Do I wish we had a dozen pro-bono election lawyers on ballot access? You bet! I think we all would love that. But we don't, and that's only minimally a reflection of the Party structure and far more about external factors.

We all have our ideas of what we think are the best solutions, but ideology is overridden by constraints even as we try to overcome those constraints. That's why I mentioned but will not propose the Senate idea. It's good ideologically but is constrained from passing by simple lack of enthusiasm. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/d0371a3ec023d83f8ea83c92fd708b37%40lpky.org.

[Secretary LNC]

I am going to give a comment that is from a member of this committee but someone I sough counsel from on the revision issue.

"That is going to eat up far too much time."  Now, my response was, that may be true, but that is not the issue, etc etc.

But the statement is true whether or not it is relevant to the revision issue.  The amount of convention floor time a true consideration would take would be far more than the rules allow.  So many suspensions would have to happen and it would kill other proposals being heard.  (or in some case moot proposals the committee has already spent hours on).

Now, you know I don't favor this proposal.  But putting that aside, let me try to objectively advise (take it or leave it) on the right way this should be done.

A resolution from the convention floor directing the LNC to appoint a committee solely for investigating possible structural changes in a systematic and "politically scientific" way.  This would include many public meetings with stakeholders.  It would include skilled parliemantarians being brought in to craft language that would not have unintended consequences.  This resolution would include a temporary convention rules change for the 2026 convention to consider the recommendations of that committee which could include recommendations to change the bylaws.  That committee can be charged to keep the bylaws committee apprised.

THAT is the right way to do this to not make a grand experiement of fundamentally changing the party proposed by a group that has far more on its plate than just that, and by delegates who really deserve a proposal that has been thoroughly vetted and revetted wtih many public stakeholder meetings and analyzed by PAID professionals.

In my opinion, this is the wrong way.  My opinion.  Again worth the same as everyone else's opinion here.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TRC--sS_YTSZk5CBS%2BA6XYc8MSr6OcSt4%3DXdNcoDsJtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mistype: NOT a member of this committee

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

(and in addition to skilled parliamentarians brought in, I think political advisory LAWYERS should look at)

[Paul Bracco]

Colleagues,

I'm a bit confused about what is actually being discussed here. I assume we're not actually talking about Proposal U - Cleanup Affiliation Language and Responsibilities, is my assumption correction that we're referring to Proposal W - LNC made up of member from each state affiliate, Executive Committee hired by LNC?

Sincerely,

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wmj02EBpMqmftadry2OTQgyFROcrB6%3DRNqHnU6LN6g0Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Yes we are at least I thought so.... Sylvia?  Are you referring to that?

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/ubk5ZRr15PB3fQ2n19XtGtEuVuJvkQH7MmqpbiVCbLijGfhVNULWQpLNfo9h4cEcfXxTeCto9rTmf7t6H88sMcQfSHHmW-eTqPyb0qWnFvY%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

Addressing subject of straw polls or mock votes.

---

From: "Secretary LNC" <secr...@lp.org>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:36:35 PM
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE PROOSAL U

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkPjnF5%2ByLXqNCgEdC1uLQPAO1mjXATgoQbw%2BE6%2BAvRbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

No this was before that.  On revision.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/192848127.11930413.1683053838712.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

Any suggestion to revamp the entire structure of an organization,

is more than an amendment.  It is a revision.  So any attempt to

restructure an organization must be authorized by the entire

membership or the board or LNC.

---

From: "Secretary LNC" <secr...@lp.org>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:01:25 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wktu0VAE3J6CyG8P5go8se2EFYvXqyBGNhDYj12E25Vmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Gotcha.  I have your pending point of order on agenda.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/529760611.12079011.1683057911398.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[ken.mo...@lpky.org]

This is why people hate RONR

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/529760611.12079011.1683057911398.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, please.  I asked before.  You don't have to agree with the outcome but Ms. Arrowwood's point of order is her right and I ask you respect that.

I don't know what's going on but please step back a bit - these past two days aren't like you.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/cbfd3ed7-115b-4cd8-b2e7-b734b7c26877%40email.android.com.

[ken.mo...@lpky.org]

Sent too soon. My apologies. 

 it doesn't revamp the whole structure. The JC bylaws platform and credentials comm are all the same. The lnc still exists, it is a modification to makeup and election, but still there with plenary control. The executive committee already exists in the policy manual and this is moving it to bylaws though admittedly a different fornat. In the past we had combined ED/chair (Dasbach) so its not entirely new. 

But let's shut it down with no debate using parliamentary stuff because shutting down discussion in a committee is way healthier for an org than actually having a discussion. 

On May 2, 2023 16:05, Sylvia Arrowwood <sarro...@homesc.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/529760611.12079011.1683057911398.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[ken.mo...@lpky.org]

Decorum! Lol

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmpHUO8SU1-Df8RW2QQ3byUzw7tWbRBFsQeBMuS3ne21w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

In official deliberations?  Yes.  Sparring elsewhere?  Go for it.  I wish we could just go out for some nice bourbon.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/115228e5-2d06-4f23-b1c0-7616fb2d0e4d%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman you will have this opportunity for debate!  I promise you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/ef5cfe7b-0cf5-46ae-8da6-c1f304cdad64%40email.android.com.

[Rob Latham]

After reviewing both Proposal W and Proposal X, in light of the suggestion that one or both of them may be a revision and thus outside this committee's purview, I note this language from RONR 12th Ed. 57:5: "Consideration of a revision of the bylaws is in order only when prepared by a committee that has been properly authorized to draft it either by the membership or by an executive board that has the power to refer such matters to a committee."

My sense is that this Bylaws and Rules Committee is such an authorized committee, whether these proposals are deemed revisions or not.

Compare our committee to the opportunity that the members of many steve-level affiliates have to propose bylaws and rules amendments.

There's a difference between member-initiated proposals and committee-initiated proposals.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Secretary LNC]

You misunderstand that sentence.  It means "properly authorized" (ie specifically) to do a revision.  We are not.  Whether or not this is a revision is Ms Arrowwood's point of order which I have not ruled on which is skated for when it comes up on the agenda.  Any ruling (if any as I have the choice to submit to committee fir ruling) can be appealed no matter which way.

But there is zero doubt IF it's a revision it is out of order.

It has not been decided if it is.  That's the issue.

As Mr. Seebeck has noted, this is a provision he and I have spent a lot of time with. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGnq8187Z%3DrUKFNjuS6-%2BjKc3S05%3DWmY%3D1EciRNeCsTWng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

And if it passes through appeal here etc etc I expect the same point of order to be raised on the floor because this is an edge case.  Thus my advice on how it should be done via resolution of convention directing LNC ..... details given earlier.

[ken.mo...@lpky.org]

So the convention body doesn't have the power (which I already knew) and the committee doesn't have the power. I'm sure that's what RONR intended - paralyzing an organization. 

Parliamentary procedure is supposed to facilitate debate and protect rights of the delegates assembled. 

Notice is supposed to be provided so delegates, or potential delegates who otherwise decide the planned business isn't worth the time/travel, aren't sideswiped. Proposing a change like this from the floor would be preposterous. I would oppose that, even though I support the provision, because it would be completely unfair to the delegates; even if, for some reason, our bylaws permit the side-swiping of delegates. 

Instead, such a provision, and any other substantive proposal, should have a thorough debate, and should be hammered out, in a committee ahead of convention. (And then it should be noticed well ahead of convention.) That is, in part, the purpose of subcommittees.  To take a thing or group of things under consideration, and return them back to the deciding body for up/down vote with ability to amend the scope of the change to be less, but not more, than the noticed proposal. It saves the convention body time, and helps perfect proposals instead of back-of-napkin proposals becoming encoded in governing documents. 

Even changing voting methodologies changes the outcome, and therefore the makeup of a committee. Changing any rule may make someone reconsider running for an office or seeking an appointment, therefore changing the outcome and arguably the structure that would have been. The titles may not change, but titles are not what makes an organization work - the people holding the titles do.

Every single change proposed or made, other than technical corrections, changes the governance in both actual form and in actual work product. 

If it is the position of this committee that RONR is to be wielded as a tool to prevent discussion, deliberation, and debate, then there's nothing good that will be done here, other than perhaps putting a coat of paint on some fencing that (arguably) needs to be replaced. 

But whatever. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk1MdGKNnQwUJTE1aAh8bhGySq2T0q_-R%2B%3Dd6VZg_gb1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Ken you are not listening.  You completely mischaracterized what was said.  I'm on my phone, I will try to explain AGAIN.

Please stop reacting from emotion and take a step back if you need to.  What you said is completely and utterly incorrect and it's getting out of hand.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/f86342fc-32e3-45d2-937a-91aaf92dfdbe%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Okay I am at a computer.

====So the convention body doesn't have the power (which I already knew)====

WRONG.  They do. You can move it from the floor.

===and the committee doesn't have the power. I'm sure that's what RONR intended - paralyzing an organization. ===

RONR intended that a committee doesn't go rogue.  A committee has boundaries.  One of those boundaries is NOT out of the blue proposing a revision.  I am sorry you don't like that, but it is a very very sensible rule.

===Parliamentary procedure is supposed to facilitate debate and protect rights of the delegates assembled. ===

and that is what is doing.  The DELEGATES gave appointing power to the LNC.  The LNC did NOT authorize a revision.  In fact the LNC ASKED THE APPLICANTS what they intended to propose.  You never disclosed this.  If there is an issue here, perhaps you should have disclosed this and asked the LNC for consent to propose a revision.  You chose not to.  

==Notice is supposed to be provided so delegates, or potential delegates who otherwise decide the planned business isn't worth the time/travel, aren't sideswiped. Proposing a change like this from the floor would be preposterous. I would oppose that, even though I support the provision, because it would be completely unfair to the delegates; even if, for some reason, our bylaws permit the side-swiping of delegates. ===

Notice if not required under our bylaws.  Our bylaws suck in that regard.  You can personally give notice through various means.  Or you can give notice in the way I suggested but you wouldn't get your way this convention.  That is not acceptable to you.  That is your choice.

==Instead, such a provision, and any other substantive proposal, should have a thorough debate, and should be hammered out, in a committee ahead of convention. (And then it should be noticed well ahead of convention.) That is, in part, the purpose of subcommittees.  To take a thing or group of things under consideration, and return them back to the deciding body for up/down vote with ability to amend the scope of the change to be less, but not more, than the noticed proposal. It saves the convention body time, and helps perfect proposals instead of back-of-napkin proposals becoming encoded in governing documents. ===

And I told you how you can do it properly.  You don't like that suggestion.

I believe I explained it enough.  You are now basically attacking a committee member for making a valid point of order and lashing out, and I am asking you to please stop.  You can make your debate points that it is not a revision at a meeting.  In fact, to stop this which is very demoralizing to the committee, I am moving your item ahead on the agenda.  The committee may object but I want to put an end to this one way or another.

Please drop it until the meeting.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:06 PM <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/f86342fc-32e3-45d2-937a-91aaf92dfdbe%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

What I want to make clear what I am moving ahead is the Point of Order not the entire proposal.  If the Point of Order is defeated, the proposal remains on the agenda in the order submitted.  If the Point of Order prevails, the item is stricken.  I have some questions for Ms. Arrowwood about her Point of Order for clarification, but I am waiting for the meeting because I would like this unproductive bickering to stop in email and wait until we can all talk to each other "live" human to human.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Rob Latham]

Looked for legal opinions interpreting the "properly authorized" sentence from RONR 12th Ed 54:5, which as has been noted elsewhere was not in prior editions of RONR. Although I did not find any, I did find a take from the co-founder and senior of the website linked below, who in addition to being a lawyer and accountant also claims to be a registered parliamentarian.

See #7, describing the new sentence as an example of a "fundamental flaw that has plagued the last several editions" of RONR.

https://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2021/september/church-meetings-new-roberts-rules-of-order.html

Just the messenger, folks. 

May the members of this committee not have the opportunity for a reviewing body to interpret that sentence in our lifetimes. ;-)

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 6:58 PM Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk4k0bUPLjL0zyYU1YsvbhbSaqNd8N%3DWOHsy9VG3FWFSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

We're not. To do a revision,  it has to be authorized as such specifically. 

Went through this in LPCO in 2021.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGnq8187Z%3DrUKFNjuS6-%2BjKc3S05%3DWmY%3D1EciRNeCsTWng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Guys, a point of order has been called.  I've been really lax in this but once that happens debate should stop until the Chair rules.  That will happen next meeting.

Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TzJR5XqPdvzU%3Dk%2BfROom0Q_1eD1VOoZM_rOkhvSefWtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ken Moellman]

I have seen the follow-up emails past Mr Latham's message, but to explain all of this in a meeting would be difficult as it relies on referencing specific words, phrases, and provisions in RONR, our bylaws, and our convention rules of order.  If there is a good case for doing various forms of committee business on a mailing list, laying out sections of copy and pasted RONR/Bylaws/Rules with analysis is likely that case.  This is argument specific to the point of order.

While LPCO may have considered this question, and it may bring forth good additional research, the national party's bylaws in particular are deficient in a number of ways that may otherwise affect the situation, which I outline in detail below.

TL;DR version:

* Proposed revisions are bylaw amendment proposals that are "so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws"

* Proposed revisions may NOT come from the floor

* First LNC restructure proposal is not "general"

* Second LNC restructure proposal is not "extensive", "general", or "scattered throughout the bylaws"

* As created in the LP, the Bylaws and Rules Committee has no explicitly-defined scope or assigned authority in bylaws or RONR 

* RONR does not have a standing bylaws committee defined, only such a committee for the formation of a society

* Applying "plain meaning" is logical; Bylaws and Rules Committee does bylaws and rules amendment proposals

* RONR suggests appointed a special committee to consider revisions

* Bylaws and Rules Committee is a standing committee

* A special committee cannot be appointed to perform a task of a standing committee

* Bylaws and Rules Committee can already propose revisions, because they are bylaws amendment proposals, which is their assigned scope.

The details:

Mr Latham is 100% correct, that a revision cannot come from the floor under RONR 12. Nothing in our bylaws authorizes otherwise.

RONR PREFACE 

...

Some of the other more important points of revision include the following:

...

19. Requirement that a bylaws revision is in order only when prepared by a committee authorized to draft it (57:5).

 

RONR Section 57:5  General Revisions. Changes of the bylaws that are so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws should be effected through the substitution of an entirely new set of bylaws, called a revision. Notice of such a revision is notice that a new document will be submitted that will be open to amendment fully as if the society were adopting bylaws for the first time. In other words, in the case of a revision, the assembly is not confined to to consideration of only the points of change included in the proposed revision as submitted by the committee that has drafted it. The revision can be perfected by first-degree and second-degree amendments, but as in the case of any other bylaw amendment, the old document is not pending; and therefore, while the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form. Consideration of a revision of the bylaws is in order only when prepared by a committee that has been properly authorized to draft it, either by the membership or by an executive board that has the power to refer such matters to a committee.

 

So this would lead us down two paths:  First, is this a revision, and second, what committee, if any, has authorization to propose a revision?

 

Is this a revision?

 

First, let's determine if it is a revision. I would put forth that it is not, especially in the case of the second version, which only amends Bylaws Articles 6 and 7. The standard by which RONR classifies a revision is not whether or not if it changes the governance structure.  The standard for a "revision" is that the proposed amendments are "so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws should be effected through the substitution of an entirely new set of bylaws".

 

A critical word in that definition is the word "and". That means the proposal must be BOTH extensive AND general. And that criteria is further refined with the qualifier that they are "scattered throughout the bylaws".

 

The first proposal had a broader cleanup rolled into it. I would say is was extensive, but that it was NOT general. They were definitely scattered throughout the bylaws, due to the nature of our bylaws as they exist today not following RONR best-practices (ie. all the committees in one article, etc). But it was not a "general" change, in my opinion.

 

The second proposal, by contrast, touches only Articles 6 and 7, which today contain mostly redundant language. It only affects the structure of the LNC, but leaves all other committees and all the other lovely problems in our bylaws in-tact. The only reason it touches two articles is that each article is mostly redundant with what's in the other article. Does it change the structure of the LNC? Yes. Is it an "extensive" change? No. Is it a "general" change? No. Is it "scattered throughout the bylaws"? No.

 

Therefore, I put forth that the first version is likely not a revision, and the second version of the proposal is definitely not a revision, under the definition of a general revision in RONR 57:5.

 

 

Authority to propose revisions

 

But just for the sake or argument, let's assume that both of them were general revisions.

 

What committee is properly authorized to draft it? Does it require specific, explicit authorization of an entirely special "Revision Committee"? Or, is it the Bylaws and Rules Committee authorized, because revisions are just bylaws amendments that are "so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws"?

 

In considering this, we find a broader point.  Where does this committee -- the Bylaws and Rules Committee -- get its authority to act, at all?  Our bylaws do not outline that the committee known as the "Bylaws and Rules Committee" have any authority to do anything at all.

 

ARTICLE 11: OTHER COMMITTEES

 

2. The Bylaws and Rules Committee shall consist of 10 Party members appointed by the National Committee no later than twelve months before a regular convention. No more than five of these members shall be members of the current National Committee.

 

The bylaws never talk about this committee ever again. It assigns no specific tasks, duties, or responsibilities to the committee.

 

So what does RONR have to say about committees?

 

RONR Section 56:44  Article VII: Committees. The article on committees should provide for the establishment of each of the standing committees (50) that it is known will be required. A separate section devoted to each of these committees should give its name, composition, manner of selection, and duties. If this article names certain standing committees, no other standing committees can be appointed without amending the bylaws, unless a provision is included—usually in a separate section of the article as described below—permitting the establishment of such other standing committees as are deemed necessary to carry on the work of the society. In any event, if a standing committee is to have standing authority to act for the society without specific instructions, if business of a certain class is to be automatically referred to it, or if some other rule of parliamentary procedure is affected by the committee's assigned function, such procedure must be prescribed in a provision of the bylaws or in a special rule of order, establishing the committee by name.

 

RONR Section 50:4    Generally the term committee implies that, within the area of its assigned responsibilities, the committee has less authority to act independently for the society (or other constituting power) than a board is usually understood to have. Thus, if the committee is to do more than report its findings or recommendations to the assembly, it may be empowered to act for the society only on specific instructions; or, if it is given standing powers, its actions may be more closely subject to review than a board's, or it may be required to report more fully. Also, unlike most boards, a committee in general does not have regular meeting times established by rule; but meetings of the committee are called as stated in 50:21–22. Some standing committees, however—particularly in large state or national organizations—function virtually in the manner of boards, although not designated as such.

 

RONR Section 50:8    A standing committee must be constituted by name (a) by a specific provision of the bylaws or (b) by a resolution which is in effect a special rule of order and therefore requires for its adoption either previous notice and a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, if any of the following conditions are to apply:
• if the committee is to have standing authority to act for the society on matters of a certain class without specific instructions from the assembly;
• if all business of a certain class is to be automatically referred to the committee; or
• if some other rule of parliamentary procedure is affected by the committee's assigned function.

 

So the bylaws do give this committee, the "Bylaws and Rules Committee", a name, define its composition, and manner of selection.  But, what are the assigned responsibilities of this committee?  Where are those assigned? Convention rules don't even assign the scope of this committee.

 

RULE 4: DEBATING AND VOTING -- BYLAWS AND RULES

 

The Chair of the Bylaws and Rules Committee shall report each recommendation of the committee to the convention separately and shall have two minutes to explain the intent or purpose of the proposed amendment(s). The Convention Chair shall open each recommendation to discussion without amendment from the floor. Each recommendation shall be considered and adopted separately, with a maximum of eight minutes discussion on any recommendation. After the discussion, the Convention Chair shall bring the recommendation to a vote. If the recommendation fails, the Convention Chair shall open the recommendation to amendment for an additional 10 minutes.

 

So the committee gives a report with proposed amendments. Amendments to what?  Surely, we could infer, broadly, from the name "Bylaws and Rules Committee", that the amendments to be proposed are of the nature of "Bylaws" and "Rules". That's quite reasonable. But there is no explicit assignment of those classes of amendments to this committee. Said another way, we're relying on common sense and "plain meaning" to derive that the Bylaws and Rules Committee is proposing amendments to Party bylaws and rules.

 

RONR speaks to a "Bylaws Committee" when forming a society in Sections 54 and 56, but does not speak to the establishment of such a committee as a standing committee. In other words, there is no default standing bylaws committee in RONR.

 

Our bylaws create the "Bylaws and Rules Committee" as a standing committee, but without specifying its duties.  The committee therefore inherently derives its duties by relying upon the plain meaning of it's name, and adapting concepts from RONR under the formation of societies. This committee's scope, by nature of it's name, is "Bylaws and Rules".

 

It is obvious that delegates have wanted this committee to exist, and wanted it to propose bylaws, as for as long as I have been involved in the party there has not been a motion to consider the report of this committee out of order in convention.

 

Without a specific mandate, should it be modeled strictly after the RONR outlined "Bylaws Committee" as described when a new society is forming?  Maybe, but the fact that this committee has "And Rules" added to its name would logically extend that this committee, the Bylaws and Rules Committee, has broader authority than what is assumed by RONR in the RONR-defined Bylaws Committee.

 

The strongest argument against my point is likely found in Section 56.

 

RONR Section 56:3    Appointment of Committee. A committee to draw up proposed bylaws is usually appointed at the first organizational meeting when a new society is being formed, as described in 54; or, if an existing society wishes to undertake a general revision of its bylaws, a committee to draw up the proposed revision can be appointed at any regular meeting, just as any other special committee.

 

Notice the key words "special committee". That's important.

 

As previously established, the current "Bylaws and Rules Committee" has no specific assigned duties, and relies on "plain meaning" of its name to assign duties. However, the Bylaws and Rules Committee is a standing committee, and we assume, by it's name, its realm is Bylaws and Rules. We've already established that a revision is a type of bylaw amendment (that's general and extensive, scattered throughout the bylaws), and RONR 50:10 says you can't have two committees that do the same thing. 

 

RONR Section 50:10    A special (select, or ad hoc) committee is a committee appointed, as the need arises, to carry out a specified task, at the completion of which—that is, on presentation of its final report to the assembly—it automatically ceases to exist. A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee.

 

So is this a conflict? No. RONR does not have a standing Bylaws committee, only the one that is used for the initial formation of the society. If there was no such committee, a special committee could be created. Is a special committee existed, and then a standing committee were created, it would inherently dissolve the special committee because of how RONR 50:10 is worded. The standing committee has the standing to take on the assigned tasks.

 

In sum, the Bylaws and Rules Committee has authority, as a standing committee existing to propose amendments to bylaws and rules, generally, to propose a revision.

 

 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGmOhy7eUgTv%2BLct33OJTAD-4mFg0m2JmNPyuPxZK18pDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman.  I have not even ruled.  I have as Chair of this Committee asked that we stop until I do.  I am asking for the basic respect of my position.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/897a760890271159e9aefc659ee351fd%40lpky.org.

[Secretary LNC]

I will PDF this entire thread, and put in the agenda document for members and committee members to refer to at the meeting.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

If anyone else has any "written arguments" consideration, please send them to me off-list and I will put into a document into a supporting documents for review section of the agenda.  I am going beyond politely asking for back forth debate to stop until I actually rule, I am calling everyone to order to give me time to rule.  There will be plenty of time for hunger games if necessary after I do.  The committee can even move that any appeal of any ruling be done be via written email.  But I am asking TO LET ME RULE ON THE POINT OF ORDER.  Please.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

A member kindly asked if my last message applied to ALL current debate.  No, only to the specific proposals for which there is a pending point of order.  Carry on, fly and be free, with regard to all other business of the committee.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Okay I have done more research, and I will explain my reasoning at the meeting so that a member can appeal if they wish to and because of the issues raised in this thread (and some fundamental misunderstandings) - after a short discussion with one of the RONR authorship team, I am ruling the Point of Order not well taken and that Mr. Moellman's original motion is in order.   That is not a statement on the merits, but on the procedural propriety as far as it not being a revision.  I will give a detailed exposition of my reasoning at the meeting - and a member that disagrees can appeal from my ruling if they wish.  Please wait to hear my reasoning before noting an appeal if anyone is planning on appealing.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Point of information:

Can the original motion and the point of order be restated here?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnZjfOuyzmWSvGqzbagn6w9Y2-EGxsa9FPBOufjvM2%2BoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Yes I will do that tonight.  Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TNmFOLudKVM_2TvcU0OrfQoLAoXksx0vTYvxmx9w3e4w%40mail.gmail.com.