EMAIL BALLOT - RED-LINE PROPOSAL E - PLATFORM DELETION THRESHOLD

[Secretary LNC]

The Chair is unilaterally sponsoring this proposal.

Move to red-strike Proposal E from our consideration.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Yes

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

This will be ballot number BYLAWS EMAIL BALLOT 20240202-01

[Tom Rowlette]

Yes

--
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/CAGiA9W%3D%3DnqSzp_eTMS01eGf3AcoJ_R7d1ReQ7iOzN4YiCbKU7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Bracco]

YES

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/CA%2B6WXgVGrM6xYM0XmvMNtW2EPFpKK_yAJkis38juqH2C_bbufA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Martin]

Yes

--

Frank Martin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/W3o4rSvv1x1gBSdC6s45MVnt7WV0X-gle_nb5CJawelIFVM3h2EaXD7WDzwi35zZwwbIMnP9JJeWLjF2XizV4LbFjcA_FJ-Bw72Fm7J7zF4%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Frank Martin]

Yes

--

Frank Martin

--

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/CAGiA9Wnz%3DTEDW73y0QJe%2B0VLCRr6-FoDfP6JfjSsGgjeR6XDxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Am confused if this is the debate thread or voting thread, as I see votes happening in both threads.

Proposal E was one of the more contested proposals; passing on a vote of 6-3-1.

I voted in favor, but give it a low priority, yet enough of a priority that am feeling like it should have an outside chance at being considered (right now it would be the 18th item on my agenda) ... especially given the expressed concerns among delegates and members that inspired the proposal.

Right now, I'd like to see where it shows up on our collective ranking/scoring spreadsheet before voting on whether it should be cut or remain "on deck."

In liberty,

Rob Latham

P.S: Updated rankings informed by our ongoing conversations below. Note that for scoring on the spreadsheet am giving combined items the same weight or ranking, but then -- like national rankings of college teams when two teams are tied -- items following combined items have a weight of two higher than one higher ( so 6,6,8 rather than 6, 6, 7).

So, even though Proposal EE has a weight of 11 on my list, it would be the 8th item on the agenda because there are three combined items ahead of it.

P.P.S.: If anyone sees any inconsistencies/incongruities, please let me know.

Appetizers

1 H: Standardize Committees https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsH (consolidate and harmonize the two rules for convention-related committees into one rule)

2 J: Rising Seconds https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsJ (promotes convention efficiency while protecting member rights)

3 M: Change Timing of Credentials Committee Appointments https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsM (doubles committee’s pre-convention lead-time)
+
3 K: Lengthen Time for Platform Committee Appointments https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsK (gives Platform Committee more time to complete its work)

Main Course

5 NN: Removal from Office https://tinyurl.com/BylawsNN (adds due process protections for Officers and At-Large Members)

6 RR: Eliminate Regions https://tinyurl.com/BylawsRR (speaking of At-Large Members…)

6 SS: Cumulative Voting https://tinyurl.com/BylawsSS (if necessary)

8 R: Ranked Choice Voting for Officers https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsR (speaking of Officers…)

9 P1: Allow Electronic Balloting https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsP (make elections more efficient and auditable)

9 P: Balloting Rules Rewrite https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsP1 (speaking of elections…)

11 EE: Resolve Affiliate Disputes https://tinyurl.com/BylawsEE (outline process to resolve affiliate dispute) [Was one of this Committee’s more-contested items, but it should remain in the realm of potential convention consideration.]

12 F: Candidate Elimination https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsF (speaking of Officer elections…)

13 S: Refine Dues Definition https://tinyurl.com/2024-BylawsS (eases LNC staff’s administrative burden)
+

13 B: Increase Membership Dues https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsProposalB (increases membership dues)

15 O: Add Notice Requirements https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsO (speaking of changing platform planks and bylaws, did advance notice of proposed changes help you make a more informed choice?)

16 MM: Fix Quorum https://tinyurl.com/BylawsMM (speaking of making changes, what is a reasonable minimum number of Libertarian delegates to make changes at convention?)

Dessert

17 PP: Require Sustaining Membership for National Delegates https://tinyurl.com/BylawsPP (clarifies delegate requirements)

18 TT: Affirm Delegate Allocations https://tinyurl.com/BylawsTT (provides mechanism for affiliates to affirm delegate allocations)

19 QQ: Candidate Nominations https://tinyurl.com/Bylaws-QQ (clarifies what “member of another party” means for an affiliate’s ability to endorse a candidate) [Was one of this Committee’s more-contested items, but it should remain in the realm of potential convention consideration.]

20 N: Limit Committee Alternates https://tinyurl.com/Bylaws2024N (promotes committee efficiency)
+
20 AA: Limit Alt Allocations https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsAA (the number of an affiliate’s alternate delegates may not exceed the number of an affiliate’s primary delegates)

21 U: Clean up Affiliation Language and Responsibilities https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsU (clarifies affiliate duties)

22 E: Platform Plank Deletion https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsE (speaking about voting on things, raise deletion threshold on platform planks)

23 L: Delegate Allocation Formula - Sustaining Membership Only https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsL

24 KK: Resignations  https://tinyurl.com/BylawsKK

Off the menu

A: Clarify Chair Ascension Procedure https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsProposalA

C: Define Membership https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsCSubstitute (clarifies membership requirement)

G: Modify JC Rules https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsG

I: Raise Token Vote Threshold https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsI (speaking of platform plank deletion, raise threshold to use delegates’ convention time to vote on platform deletion)

T: Clean up Committee Procedures https://tinyurl.com/2024-BylawsT

Q: Amendment of Preamble https://tinyurl.com/2024BylawsQ

BB: Put time limit on LNC Appeals https://tinyurl.com/BylawsBB

CC: Clean Up Statist Language https://tinyurl.com/BylawsCC (adopts more precise language and preferred tone for convention special rules of order) [Was going to take this off the menu, but then saw it could be a good lead-in to Proposal U. Let survey responses determine at what agenda item this proposal lands.] 

HH: Limit Minority Report https://tinyurl.com/BylawsHH

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 1:42 PM Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

--

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/CAGiA9W%3D%3DnqSzp_eTMS01eGf3AcoJ_R7d1ReQ7iOzN4YiCbKU7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Object to consideration of the question.

--

[Secretary LNC]

I'm ruling that out of order.  Emails are not well suited to things such as this so I'm instructing the email ballot go forward, but no official announcement of results until next meeting.  At the meeting I will state the basis for my ruling and you will have the opportunity to appeal. 

___________________________________________________

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/CAGasu4TSCT4t7%2Bjzv6MJaN3r6nhtYeh21nr8%2BUPNQ%2BsVhSRx0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chuck Moulton]

I vote yes to red strike proposal E.

In liberty,

Dr. Chuck Moulton

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2024, at 2:42 PM, Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:



--

[Mike Seebeck]

POINTS OF ORDER RAISED!

I objected to consideration of the question because the motion moved immediately to a vote without debate, an action which is itself out of order, and contrary to the Chair's own advice about email list use from the commencement of this committee. It also is damned inconsiderate to those of us on travel, or on other days or for other reasons, do not have immediate access to our personal email.

However, a motion to rescind (or amend something previously adopted) is an incidental main motion, so objection to consideration of question is out of order.

(Contextually, it is nonsensical to cut a carryover proposal that is uncontroversial. But that's not a point of order, either.)

HOWEVER, moving in this case from motion to vote without debate or opportunity to amend in this case is out of order, regardless of interpretation of type of motion, and I raise a point of order regarding that:

• If this motion to strike from the report is considered a motion to rescind the previous adoption, in this case, the recommendation itself that was previously adopted into the report, then it is also debatable (and amendable!) and the objection to moving to vote without debate applies. See RONR 35:2 std chars 5&6 and t28:87.

• If this motion to strike from the report is considered motion to amend something previously adopted, in this case, the recommendation itself that was previously adopted into the report, then that motion is still also debatable (and amendable!) and the same objection to moving to vote without debate also applies. See RONR 35:2 std chars 5&6, supra, and t8:13.

(It should be noted that since RONR treats Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted the same way with the same vote thresholds, and correctly so, that it makes perfect sense to do the same with Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted when it comes to Platform planks (and Preamble!) (or Bylaws) as well. So why strike a recommendation (or two?) to do exactly that and make things consistent? But that's not a point of order, either–more like a point of irony.)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wmi35DvkSRvwVtZGncw6ydK3sKpP8oP5%3Df2AdgydbfUeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I will address at meeting.

However email ballots permit debate in the email ballot thread itself.

This was explained in the Welcome Manual sent when this committee started.

Members may debate freely and may change their vote before the expiration of 7 days if debate changes their mind.

I will not declare the results of this ballot as official until there is an opportunity to appeal at a live meeting.

Voting (and debate) can proceed.

___________________________________________________

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/CAGasu4T9B_Usm6N8Zq3v%3DZQJwVRdKjVNJ8LtdZOMa%3D0HLD94ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I see one thing I misunderstood.  It seems that Mr. Seebeck has agreed that objection to consideration of the question is improper and has withdrawn and is now making a point of order that this is either a motion to amend something previously adopted or a motion to rescind with allows debate and amendment and a 2/3 vote threshold.

I rule all of these points not well taken.

First, I will note that RONR 1.1fn1 discourages email processes as many situations unnprecedented in parliamentary law will arise and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable.

Noting this, I will not it is improper to engage in substantive debate on a point of order until the chair has ruled - a brief explanation of the point of order necessary for the chair to under the point is permitted but not a full on debate point. The chair has the privilege of arguing their position both first and last  IF an appeal is made.

But since the above clearly shows that many of these niceties will  just not work in email, the chair is overlooking that but will state if an appeal is made, the chair prefers that to be made at a meeting but if a member wishes to appeal in email, to please do so in a separate thread as it will be in effect a separate email ballot.

Here are the reasons for my ruling in addition to the citation above.

It is just absolutely incorrect to characterize this as a motion to amend something previously adopted or a motion to rescind.

We have not adopted a report.  In fact ALL of the items will be reported out, either at the convention floor or in a separate report that is codified as items decided not to be presented.  These are deliberations on form of report, not either of those motions. We have a constellation of items to include in a report.  Every single one of the items omitted from the report will be on record as being the recommendation of this committee and included in either the report to go to the convention floor or a report to pass along to the next committee.  Nothing has been rescinded nor has anything previously adopted been amended.

However, even if it WERE a motion to rescind or motion to amend something previously adopted, the point of order is still not well taken as debate is fully allowed.  If any member wishes to "amend" which would have the same effect as voting no unless the amendment is to yellow instead of red, they are free to do so on a separate email ballot by getting a second (a second is required in email ballots in a committee of this size despite it being a committee due to email ballot rules).

The welcome manual explains this linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M1iMuz_2NKTSeHonep-fgCCH4stn03PQ/view?usp=drive_link

Start on page 7 for context, but the very pertinent part is this (bold added):

To vote, simply respond to the email. You may explain the reasons for your vote or
engage in debate but when voting please clearly set apart and unambiguously state your
vote.
For example, this works best:
I vote yes/no (or abstain).
ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT.
This works less well:
ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT. VOTE.
This does not work at all:
ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT, VOTE, ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT,
ARGUMENT.
Neither does:
I would vote yes IF (counterfactual) but maybe I could live with this.
I am inclined to vote yes.
I like this idea.

So the premise of the point of order fails on all grounds.

If any member wishes to appeal this ruling, start a new thread and get the appropriate co-sponsor.

Voting may proceed on this email ballot.  If an appeal is had the results will not be final until the appeal is fully resolved.  

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

(PS: the original proposal is a motion to amend something previously adopted but that is not what this motion is)

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Sorry, but the fatal flaw in the argument is that Robert's trumps the custom outlined in those principles, which are not rules and have not been adopted as such. See RONR 50:26, 2:4, and 2:5-25, *especially 2:25, which is 100% applicable here.* The custom itself violates RONR 45:7.

Authorization of an email vote is not in question. But because the process surrounding that vote are not defined as rules to override the parliamentary authority and are considered custom absent citable rules or motions to the contrary, the parliamentary authority takes precedence.

My point of order is still valid and I will appeal from the ruling of the Chair at the next meeting. As such, I have no vote to cast at this time.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wnhnj-xum0dedB%3Drex8_yQurrH_RDmDQ2y248ybf7XD%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I'll add to next agenda.

Are you expresssly abstaining so that an alternate cannot vote pr just remaining silent so an alternate can vote?

___________________________________________________

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/CAGasu4SDR-bFxRBg%2BABWGjLt3p95%3DErK%2B2sZpSXfNjAHoR9%2BWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

I am saying that a vote at this time is OUT OF ORDER PER ROBERTS and as such there is no valid vote to make in the affirmative, negative, or abstention.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wm0q8ERuo-qYorZz49m-uUTx9_4v7TMbi-%2BnwzLcd4eiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I have ruled that out of order.

Voting is proceeding.

If youd like to start an immediate appeal please start a separate thread and get a sponsor.

___________________________________________________

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/CAGasu4R9VfMT_10m%2BJagyuKbAp%2BVMc5%2B%2BOb89DhQE-6qNpRcsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Excuse me, ruled that not well taken.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Then I appeal the ruling from the chair for the indipsutable reasons already given.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WntH4JiA2XKnaZyZ1h-CG4NLG3JEijeJcEDAcj%2Bmj7DNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Please start a new thread and request a sponsor as instructed.

___________________________________________________

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/CAGasu4T6Vi3kY6%2B8DM_Np6nCfLZEnk9qnf44im0UAHdoTSU1UQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Thank you for opening a request for sponsors for an appeal.

As previously instructed, voting (and debate) will continue on this thread for the remainder of the seven day period.

I will hold off on announcing results depending on appeal.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Chuck Moulton]

Colleagues,

I agree with the chair that debate can proceed simultaneously with
voting on electronic ballots.

I waited until that evening to vote in deference others chiming in, then
submitted my votes on the chair's sponsored e-ballots. I am monitoring
the committee email list for debate and am open to changing my votes
before the deadline if I am persuaded by later discussion.

In furtherance of this active and open debate, I have points to make on
the following thee ongoing ballots:
* Red-Line Proposal E - Platform Deletion Threshold
* Red-line Balloting P and Rewrite P1 - Retain and Rewrite Proposal P1
Electronic Voting to Fit Current Structure
* Yellow-Line Proposal C "Exclusively" membership language

I have organized my thoughts on these important issues. In the following
video I outline a coherent framework the committee should implement to
perfect our report, prioritize and order proposals, and maximize the
chances that convention delegates adopt our suggested amendments. I
welcome feedback from the rest of the committee and interested observers
on my plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZErQ7eQ8ec

Thank you.

[Secretary LNC]

LOLOLOLOLOL

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--
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-2024/56b8bcda-0c60-a98e-7e77-1274a5d0de02%40moulton.org.

[Rob Latham]

Haven't opened the video, but the thumbnail alone.... 😆

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:49 PM Chuck Moulton <ch...@moulton.org> wrote:

[Frank Martin]

I believe I warned you all against running with this idea.

--

Frank Martin

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:49 PM Chuck Moulton <ch...@moulton.org> wrote:

[Secretary LNC]

FAFO

___________________________________________________

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/CAPSOdknAb3hF_QGgB227amOdS-qW70JOyinzSY7WTaPk%3DCG6mQ%40mail.gmail.com.