Proposal Z (the other Z was actually Y) - JC Decisions are final

[Secretary LNC]

Proposal attached. 

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Needs a delegate vote threshold for overturn. 

--
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/CAGiA9WkMGkup_R7m%3DmihcCPmVBGhEqHqQ-br4m4DNwP7Z1Jo9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

True.  Suggestions?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4RvSjyDEwUaYf3Yf_1E88kdFUAGca7tEgoH4kQHJv1peg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Mike Seebeck]

2/3 or 3/4 of Delegates.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wnp0k6fRtiPZUePMTAzEQkXB4civc5Aeh7gRYhO46epfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

I’d be in favor of 2/3 across the board or of utilizing the same 2/3 with notice & 3/4 without notice framework that we’re currently discussing in the live meetings.

However I would not be in favor of 3/4 across the board. I think if we create a scenario where it’d take a lower threshold to amend the bylaws to abolish the JC entirely then it would take to overturn an individual JC decision, that’s a signal that we’re setting the threshold to overturn too high.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4SwtEuhesmY7jSQ6rmjEEC_XtkEToHq5W85bjTSPAdoCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Let me push back.  There already is one instance in bylaws where JC is overturned - on platform plank challenges.  And it takes 3/4 to overturn.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/Ga32b9suyzfErGu-a78IVjO_E3wjnnbBGtL1MD1BVhVXaCjNot92snosdPh2r8f6UgFuth2RychzNhrHCBfW_SqDWsw5z51AmmS0Q0KdVvk%3D%40protonmail.com.

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

IMO any action taken or motion passed by any committee should be able to be reconsidered by the convention body except where its impossible to undo it (eg. the money is spent)

So I would suggest making that the clause that does override. The timeframe for JC to review should be what it is (or ideally, faster IMO) and then the JC cannot go back and unring the bell, only the convention body. 

Speaking of, it might be wise to add a committee report for the JC to the convention agenda. They are elected by the convention body, so they should report their decisions, if any, there. 

Ken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmgQBebJp6oKK6S7Hfw8S26xh1%2B%3D9VCbnntG%2BJTx8cN4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[TRowlette]

I've organized my thoughts on this.

The question is whether a later judicial committee should be able to rescind a decision by a former judicial committee.

The advantages of this proposal passing would be:

1.  There would be no threat of double jeopardy on any particular judicial committee hearing.

2.  The judicial committee would become less politicized since issues would be settled once and for all.

3.  It would allow people to move on and stop cycles of revenge.

4.  If judicial rulings have value as precedent (I don't think they do) there would be some amount of stare decisis, so people in a dispute could know what to expect.

The disadvantages of this proposal passing would be:

1.  A decision reached in error could never be remedied.

2.  The judicial committee would become more politicized since there would be more incentive for delegates at convention to review judicial committee decisions.

3.  It would take more convention time to debate judicial committee decisions.

4.  Since judicial committee rulings often, in modern times, touch on affiliation disputes, a ruling in favor of one group could more or less lock that group in regardless of future developments.

5.  If judicial rulings have value as precedent (I don't think they do) new rulings would have to continue in error if there was an original error made.

6.  As far as I know there has only been one time in the last 50 years that the judicial committee has rescinded a previous decision, and it didn't cause huge problems when that happened (Oregon continued to be a basket case, but its problems did not increase or decrease greatly because of it).

7.  This will tie our hands somewhat when discussing how judicial committee appeals will work when discussing the proposal to resolve affiliate disputes.

8.  The judicial committee, as a group elected by a convention, can reflect the political desires of the current convention delegates.  We can hope that the judicial committee doesn't make political decisions, but to the extent that it does, the political decision of any current judicial committee ought to trump the political decision of any previous one.

Those last two points aren't that important.  But overall from what I can see this proposal introduces to the LP slightly more and slightly larger problems than it solves.

[Rob Latham]

Mr. Rowlette,

You wrote, were this proposal to be enacted into the Bylaws: "A decision reached in error could never be remedied."

What is your response to the claim that the proposal creates a mechanism for convention delegates to remedy a decision reached (by the Judicial Committee) in error ("in error" as determined by a sufficient number of convention delegates)?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/3072a83e-187e-4332-a470-df7a6102eb79n%40lp.org.

[Tom Rowlette]

I should have written "After enough time has passed, a decision reached in error could never be remedied, even if that decision affects current events."

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGkGntFdhzVvHkWKzEjiUvmTECn%3DvtT9pY9Zw3V%3DhH96Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

There is no stare decisis and very few decision are of such a continuing nature.

We need to close the door on potential games.  It does not take a crystal ball to see a potential future.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVOg5OOUVwg8Qxy4PMMTi%2B-4d%3DjA48Vhy-o6mVGYPJiZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I agree there's no stare decisis.  I included it for completeness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmEA7_tzh4x1vR%2BXV8ZTEzAsRcBD8FJ%3Df9Sd8-wUd7hAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Rowlette.

Continuing the discussion, can we come up with an example of a Judicial Committee decision that would have an effect beyond two conventions (which is the current time frame of the amended proposal)?

Agreed that JC decisions do not have precedential value and don't bind future JCs. They do purport to resolve current disputes (we've had past LNCs act as though JC decisions are invalid) and may have persuasive value for future, similar disputes.

When that happens it falls to the larger membership to do something about that, if anything.

In liberty,

Rob Latham 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVOg5OOUVwg8Qxy4PMMTi%2B-4d%3DjA48Vhy-o6mVGYPJiZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

Here's one hypothetical.

Let's say that in a fit of pique a convention passes a sarcastic resolution that violates the Statement of Principles, in addition to being rude or awful.  The same sarcastic delegates elect members to the JC who refuse to veto the resolution when it's challenged.

Time goes by.  Let's say 20 years, long enough that almost everyone forgets about it.

A future convention decides that every previous resolution of the LP shall be displayed prominently in a public place.  The convention adjourns, and then a historian collects every resolution, finding the gross one.  The one that offends the Statement of Principles must displayed and cannot be revoked, except by a convention that will not be held for another couple of years.

If that seems farfetched, it kind of is, although there's an example of a sarcastic and controversial resolution about Isreal that was debated in 1996 or 1998.  I don't remember whether it passed, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that that could happen.

I'll grant that we're mostly talking about corner cases here, but that's what this proposal is about.  Can errors be corrected, or after enough time do we let things stand even though they're wrong?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGkJkewEkQ18Ej0KjXciW%2BVfR0MAo3K5gnF5SX9%2BJkZeUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Resolutions are decided by the then instantiated JC.  A new JC doesnt start until adjournment.  A new JC would have no jurisdiction.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgXmZnwgyWM4DK1TWpNaq-Tozc3tPvawH3%2BP5u7T4jmkbw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

You're right.  I'll have to come up with another hypothetical.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wki6GMbqQ0URKvZNdKsHhvp9Hp24MwFyqWKVkJVvmtMFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

OK, here's one.  During an affiliate dispute, the judicial committee decides that one of the LP members involved in that dispute has behaved in a way that brings disrepute to the LP, and in their decision they expel that member from the party.  They do that even though it's clearly outside of their authority to expel anyone for anything.

At the next convention this expelled person  (or his friends, who have microphone privileges) tries to say the JC acted in error, but he is so unpopular that the convention has none of it.  At the convention after that, time runs low and the issue isn't brought up, or the motion to suspend the rules to hear about it doesn't get 2/3rds.

Later on a calmer group of people see that there was a clear error made with continuing reprocussions, but they can't do anything about it.

[Secretary LNC]

The JC has no jurisdiction to expel anyone.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVF31-Ymnnw3Er_MNnLC49g3O%2BVyZqgt2hoaV_v_XeyPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

Correct

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnnO7fxw9psvCHwznE6XaBQN0vYBT6_i7VQ9JBy%3DXHPSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

To say they did something outside their authority is something that this just doesn't address and if the next convention doesn't do anything that's outside this scope.

But it's irrelevant.  Expulsions cannot be rescinded- but they are a continuing breach of the bylaws which has no time frame as long as the breach continues.  

[Secretary LNC]

So even ten years later if still considered expelled, the issue can be raised by point of order.

[Tom Rowlette]

But it couldn't be brought up to a new JC at that point, to fix the mistake they made in the past.  The only remedy would be at the convention.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnFg2ahwfDODTAqyj5nU6NH2sCcJogac4Oz7Ahryhbx7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Actually not.  The alleged member could demand under the bylaws their membership be recognized.  If LNC votes no, they have violated the bylaws which is fresh case.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgUOja0DQ6-JikX4Evh_-cUFQAw8fiftzS1JV6qpuTFqYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

We'll probably disagree about that.  If I was on the JC with this bylaw in place, and I saw that the membership was revoked (outside of any jurisdiction) in a previous decision of the JC, I would have to say that I couldn't reinstate membership even though the previous JC was clearly in error.  The fact that the current LNC refused to reinstate membership doesn't mean that the case is a new one, or that my decision to reinstate would not be a revocation of a previous decision.

Let's also consider a slightly different case.  Let's say that the old JC said that in addition to being expelled, the person could not be reinstated by any action of any future LNC.  Again, way exceeding their authority.  

Then, enough time and conventions go by.

The future LNC reinstates the membership, and that decision gets challenged.   The future JC would have to agree with the challenge, at least if they're strictly adhering to the bylaw that says that decisions can only be revoked by the next two conventions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmxxzsdE%3D3mFDcBZbQdCtsmAuw%2BkCTkkag4RurECshjnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Continuing breach of bylaws.  

We can get fantastical or realistic.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgVGjDhPsFrG%2B%3D987M_zMLO_vWiuBcTs5FoQreM%3Dgofnug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I mean if crazy is on table, what if JC dissolves the party?  What if they declare someone chair for life?  I mean we can go round and round.  That's where lawsuits come in.

[Tom Rowlette]

There are few realistic reasons why a JC decision would need to be revoked, which is why it happens so rarely.  Twice a century at the current rate.

It seems quite odd to me that the JC would say that the Secretary of State can determine who our affiliate is, but it happened.  The JC can make errors, and the results can be continuous.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkxxXaa3piCNuZ7ifSJ4QGC0DcWAY6kgf5piyCEJ6H%3D9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

That is not actually continuous.  But I hate debate via email and will save for meeting.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgXJdeHKboMXUOXEi-CWskiyx%3DU8K0UzVdBAhG8r_Qw5PQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

To answer your questions, though, if the JC decided simultaneously that the party was dissolved and that Ronald McDonald was chair for life, if two conventions decide that's not worth their time to take up then every future JC would have to hold those things to be true.

[Secretary LNC]

There is no convention if no party.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgXVJ8zFmxiumohLSmB6jskZn4%3D7E8TkHiNJxJ1eRW2RKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I'm sorry you hate it.  I actually thought it was fun

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkD9mTdxkS-jX_DFThpTA%2BUtf2P2kO9RVbc5%2BU43jPopA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

It's definitely me.  I have OCD that gives me respondititus that effects my life deleterious my so it is on me, to just not do it. It's on me, not anyone else.

More objectively, I don't find written debate productive which is one reason RONR discourages it.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgWk2W_oWQJqnHr7stemj2ZcpPPVrxDAh7o_1d06eoEtmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

Cool.  From here on out I'll just put out one declaration of my thoughts on a proposal (if I have one) and respond to questions, but that's it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkZw971V%3D0_rMdRATKN0HPOBjAmVaTQRwa%3DZCObinBosQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Hey if others want to email debate do t let my weaknesses dissuade you!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgWRxGhxx%2BVSVKydDrqB50_yKF6fNBqcGKhQPsWAwR8sGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

It's cool.  I think I'm the only person who prefers written debate to spoken.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DAvbiO0GyR5%3DxNdN5K8Ah0G3Zw%3DdJoCTztvaLXRHRvug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

I prefer written to spoken, so not just you. ;-)

And the discussion has been helpful, but so far has not persuaded me against supporting the proposal (I need to watch the video and post the language of the amendment Paul Bracco had offered).

My sense is that if there is a JC error so egregious that it can garner the support of enough convention delegates to suspend the rules to address it, then a process already exists to correct those types of errors.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgUyjSvs_2OVTOfw-aH_%2Bh5h2k3bP9__QBt88bRL158XEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

Bracco's was AA.  Tried to print it but it said Permission

not granted.  Had it for sure but can't find it so tried to reprint.

If someone has it, great.  Bracco requested it be put on hold so

he can present. 

---

From: "Rob Latham" <freeu...@gmail.com>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 4:38:10 PM
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Proposal Z (the other Z was actually Y) - JC Decisions are final

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGm1BVFODwfGz4ARJJ-xm1J4Yz6SvC4u%2B%3DyZXLU%2BVCCknA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

He was fine with Mr. Latham presenting.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/591458012.34325419.1698441251384.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

OK.  No problem.

---

From: "Secretary LNC" <secr...@lp.org>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:14:52 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wn1utRZmcCEe7n7at-P%3DDUN9Y%2Bg8WAaZuZCN1yBE2zFmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Was referring to this language Mr. Bracco had suggested for the pending proposal:

"once a vote for reconsideration or rescission or overturning has happened, you can't have another one"

That language should be cleaned up.

at1:46:45

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/591458012.34325419.1698441251384.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Secretary LNC]

That already is baked into the proposal.  If you can only do it at the next convention, and absent very narrow provisions for reconsideration once decided it is done.

___________________________________________________

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/CAOKuKGm3pdN8EPDmSyfdL37Jbd9u-ocROMJcVrWVbcTYyyKqbQ%40mail.gmail.com.