Proposal U - Clarify Affiliation Language

[Secretary LNC]

Please see attached.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Rob Latham]

I support the intent of this proposal, but the language needs further work to accomplish its objective.

As the proposal is currently written, the ambiguity shifts to this remaining language in the bylaw: "Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and provide copies of their constitution and/or bylaws as adopted and later amended with the Party Secretary."

My apologies for not having a ready solution; will think on it more.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

--
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%3DR6Qn%2B8KBNs14n7JhRKV9rdLaNM%2B2S5xVT8aEdGShjFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

What ambiguity?  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGkLeEkyyKF%3DS%3D8ZMHARLKtDgC-w0qwkKsN5eT3b6uGYdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Rob Latham]

The ambiguity (or ambiguities) referred to in the problem and benefits section of the proposal, and purportedly addressed by removing the language "from any qualifying organization requesting such status" from the first sentence of Article 5.2.

Problem: There are perceived ambiguities. First, that the LNC must take any taker (or
even the first taker) on a petition for affiliation even if there is a good reason not to.
Second, whether or not the duty to provide the governing documents is ongoing.
Solution: Reorganize the sentence to make it clear that there is no such duty to accept
any petition and that the duty to provide governing documents is ongoing.
Benefits: Removes these long-term perceived ambiguities.

This proposed language: "Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and provide copies of their constitution and/or bylaws as adopted and later amended with the
Party Secretary." arguably maintains both the path to affiliation and recognition duty the stricken language purports to remove.

Bylaws are interpreted by their express language, and intent is consulted only if the language is deemed ambiguous.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DW-cxqGs%2BNMNKe%2BEpcHgiD7jhubPg89MCy1ToS%2BThd6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

No it doesn't.  It keeps the conditions and makes it clear they are ongoing.  I've dealt with this language for five years now as secretary.  Funny enough I found proof that twenty years ago it was considered a continuing obligation.  Check out screenshot.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGnLvWLOKDK-iSjBj8T5Nun2rCScuCcW1rXgRDkHVL%3D_zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

It appears that there may be a misunderstanding as to what proposed language my prior comments intend to address.

I'm focusing on the "any takers" aspect of the proposed amendment (and in the context of the existing bylaws language and what remains if the proposed language is adopted). The proposed amendment does not fix the "any takers" issue.

Another "taker" that adopts the SoP and meets the continuing obligation to provide organizing documents to the Party may claim affiliate recognition under the proposed standard.

The language ought to be tightened up to require more than just adopting the SoP and providing a copy of organizing documents for state-level affiliate recognition (e.g., "first in time, first in right"?).

Returning to the continuing obligation proposed language, that bylaws section deals with a grant of affiliate recognition.

But it's not clear what is the consequence of a failure to meet that continuing obligation. 

Disaffiliation? That's a different bylaws section, although if memory serves correctly, it's in the same article of the bylaws.

And is disaffiliation a proportionate consequence for not providing later amended organizing documents?

What is the reasonable timeframe in which such later amended organizing documents must be provided by an affiliate to the Party? And upon pain of ...?

In liberty,

Rob Latham 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3D63gxRJDMEX9pCeOD5PB5%3DNcTpH5Atc6Jk6jkU1aT_8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

It completely fixes the any takers issue.  Sorry I just disagree.

There is purposefully no automatic penalty.  It could be "cause" for disaffiliating.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKG%3DMP4eKQf9PW5M5bAF3vtKEGP81RT9GVJyG2XKNCRfFdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Not sure this proposed substitute fixes the problem I mentioned earlier in this thread, but it's intended to tighten up some of the language.

[Secretary LNC]

Did you mean to attach anything?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/f932a02f-e1ab-49ac-857f-b6933de9aa2en%40lp.org.

[Rob Latham]

Yes, it should look like this screen capture.



Will forward directly.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmX9wd8rk1gA8js8K4vxSryiBmT4UUqRT0TLqVKTHttmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I think both proposals solve the problem, though Lathams is marginally better on clarity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGn3CYPR-0%2BG%3DetMWMc59OEaZEw0FNnW-HOqjYwKdc3XVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Not entirely sure on that, but figured we shall see in debate.

___________________________________________________

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/CA%2B6WXgU-E7oSrBxEUdjGqH663k4w-7vz1otbunatnMpz8zLS4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Replacing the first and last "shall" with "may" (and leaving the "shall" in the middle intact) may solve the "any takers" problem I mentioned before by making chartering at the LNC's discretion.

[Tom Rowlette]

In those two cases "shall" and "may" have the same meaning, at least how I read it.  But if "may" is 0.01% less ambiguous, we might as well switch them up.

--
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/CAOKuKGm9mM29Uo%3DXJYMTwBhfS2UsEMoZe7y3PBdbScBKUyho7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

2nd Substitute attached. Basically removed three proposed changes from the 1st Substitute (restoring "state-level" language in current bylaw).

See third column of comparison document for differences between the 1st Substitute and 2nd Substitute.

To orient us, the discussion comparing the original proposal and the 1st Substitute begins at about the 1:42:22 mark:

https://youtu.be/yuWVa25b1Eo?feature=shared&t=6142

Also, there was some discussion about a sanction that could be assessed against a disobedient affiliate. Applying the principle of proportionality, because constitution and bylaws relate to how an affiliate determines who may be its delegates (Art. 5.3 and 10.2.b.) and deals with delegate substitution by alternates (Art. 10.6.b.), how about limiting non-complying affiliates to one regular delegate and one alternate at a national convention? (For a harsher consequence, see Art. 10.4.d.).

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%2B6WXgU-Z41Votx%2BP8aMUnHhLAcrsbe32TtG6GxA1wBoHFpU3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I'll get that in notes 

[Tom Rowlette]

We should not be dinging affiliates number of delegates for this.  If some state never again submits their updated bylaws to national it'll be irritating, but not enough damage done that any punishment is appropriate.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkwMp-WPQqHgLaZFB6_Pmg8fJ4ViQxJ5xjLK05FeG6Uzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Re-sending