Informal Brainstroming thread

[Secretary LNC]

As I wrote in my initial timeline thoughts thread:

Brainstorming thread

Concurrent with this email, I am starting a brainstorming thread - this is for members to just jot down things that we should (or maybe should) address.  These do not need to be complete thoughts, but a way to preserve ideas that we will regularly check on as the term progresses.  I will keep a log of these and bring them up when opportune.  To respect everyone's December family time, I ask that we keep Committee "work" to this informal brainstorming thread and hit the ground hard come 1/2.  

Think of this as the sand box to jot down ideas.  Some may never be taken up but it gets the juices flowing.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Here are some I had:

Codify issue of Chair succession if vacancy (I don't believe our bylaws at present are unclear but others do, so needs to be resolved)

Although Richard Brown disagrees with me, Alicia Mattson (PRP) agrees with me that our Bylaws do  not allow "checkout" procedure despite the fact that we do it every convention.  If we want to allow checkouts, we need to clearly allow it.

Standing seconds - all it takes is one person to get up and even in good faith waste a lot of time, if they get just one person to "second."  Standing seconds require a certain minimum number to "second" to move things along and discourage things like resolutions that Harry Potter is the best book ever.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

--
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/CAGiA9WmcBc0YCQZ19PO6_OMHM1d7Srpd7TicaEKWqvZQkY77%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

More than one second sounds good to me.  Custom, needs to be challenged

if you want to get rid of it.  It takes a Majority Vote.  If ain't broke, don't need

fixin.  See 2;19.

My initial thoughts.  Could be wrong.  Great believer in not making Bylaws

longer than absolutely necessary. 

---

From: "Secretary LNC" <secr...@lp.org>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 12:34:26 AM
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Informal Brainstroming thread

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkBzT1VZUWJUrQrJhVzbBgUzjv%2BuFFzupxYAPkgE88f5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Things are very broke.

___________________________________________________

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-2024/701684618.63601071.1670841805503.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Paul Bracco]

Perhaps 2024 will not be the year for these proposals as they could all cause significant controversy but I'd like to get the rest of the committee's thoughts on the following:

• Approximately 30% of our national convention delegates are allocated by way of percentage of votes for the presidential candidate. In recent years this has not created any sort of misalignment between state parties as the LP presidential campaign has achieved 50 + 1 ballot access. However, it's never sat well with me that we are basing part of the delegate allocation of each state party on presidential vote totals, which would certainly be negatively impacted if that state party were to not achieve ballot access due to either current or future onerous ballot access laws foisted upon them by their state government. I'd like to get the rest of the committee's thoughts on re-configuring delegate allocation such that all delegates are allocated based upon sustaining membership numbers only, with the percentage of sustaining membership per delegate adjusted to maintain a near-equivalent (1,045-1,055) number of national delegates. Based on my calculations if the presidential delegate allocation was struck then the sustaining membership delegate allocation percentage would need to be adjusted from 0.14% to somewhere between 0.097% and 0.0972% to maintain a near-equivalent total delegate allocation. I'd also wish to insert language to ensure that no affiliate is allocated less than 3 delegates.

• I'd like to see the committee put forward some form of dues increase proposal. As far as I can tell from the historical bylaws that I've been able to find, the sustaining dues have been set at $25 per year since at least 2006. Perhaps the delegates will not wish to increase dues, but given the significant inflation since 2006 I think we should at least consider it.

• Perhaps the most controversial idea is a re-structure the LNC, specifically removing the regional system and increasing the number of at large representatives from 5 to 14. I would be very open to packaging this with some kind of alternative voting method for the at large election, but I'm not personally knowledgeable enough about all the different kind of voting methods that we could use so I'd want to lean on either other members of the committee who have that knowledge or experts among the party membership for suggestions on which method would be the best.

I fully understand if the committee would rather not touch these topics given the controversy (or controversies) that are highly likely to result so I will not take offense if some or all of these suggestions are not brought forward.

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/CAGiA9Wmk8EL25VbvCd2WbHnkt-vZeZaYtTjb5pesGr-Xn868dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I would like to do some research on the delegate allocation formula history and perhaps talk with Ms. Mattson on that and some Party old-timers.  You bring up a valid concern.

Yes, I agree dues need to be increased.  This was on the docket in the proposals that were not heard in 2022.

You know I dislike the regional system but there also needs to be a way to have fair representation.  If the regional system were proposed to be done away with, it would need to take effect at the following convention because people spend time and resources campaigning for those positions and it would not be fair to yank it out from under them IMHO.  Another thing I am toying with is having the conversion to at-larges with a different voting method that ensured proportional representation so that voting blocs could band together to get representation.  IF we had electronic voting we could have STV, but there is no way we are hand-calculating THAT, but cumulative voting would work.  Absent even proposal to eliminate regions, I would like to see the present at-large elected with proportional representation.  This way minority voices could plan to at least have a seat or two even if outnumbered at convention.

___________________________________________________

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/GvmuNLSN_Anp5c83a9Rm0Z4nEwO1QOkYcbfCqVoItIikJq_3fGeb9sUxpD9EoKbsdsnSgiXuELGzHl6cDe1o7wp9WGAacCnq28R-LTwy-GU%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Here is another perennial chestnut but I have been informally "surveying" through personal discussions people all over the country, and there are strong feelings, but my anecdotal experience is that with the events of the past few terms there is far MORE strong feeling in favour than opposed and that is requiring national delegates to be national members.   An objection in the past has been that means all delegates would have had to sign the pledge.  YES.  IT DOES.  And that is more important than ever in today's political climate.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

OMG YES!  Why in the hell would anyone be a Delegate to

the National LP Convention if they don't belong?  I could not

believe it when I saw that.  In South Carolina that's known as

a "Faux Bubba"

---

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

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 11:50:28 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DECJJUrKDMWzcPsoTLfu7ZHzHoW8-oBZ2AJyK03oQNMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Restructure why? The At-Large construct is already counterproductive compared to specific duty-based positions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/GvmuNLSN_Anp5c83a9Rm0Z4nEwO1QOkYcbfCqVoItIikJq_3fGeb9sUxpD9EoKbsdsnSgiXuELGzHl6cDe1o7wp9WGAacCnq28R-LTwy-GU%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Why?

Because one can be a member of their state LP and be dissatisfied with national by withholding dues yet still work as a Delegate to improve national.

Been there and done that.

Don't make the mistake of equating national membership with being a Delegate. The *states* determine their delegates to represent *their members.* National imposing such a requirement is an excessive dictate to the states that can limit their participation in national party activities while adding a dues increase puts it into the realm of a money grab. 

As a decentralized organization, adding such an element of centralization is a bad idea and contrary to what the LP stands for.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/2072914991.64490728.1670866271791.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

[Secretary LNC]

We must revamp the LNC removal process to have full due process and narrow down "cause" - I'd like to see a member recall process (similar to member appeals but that is not likely something to be tackled this time)

The bylaws need to be clear that affirmation of the SoP and providing Secretary with Bylaws is a continuing duty.

I need to listen to the 2022 convention again but Starr found a flaw in our bylaws about how it seemed that candidate with fewest votes was only dropped in first round.

Procedures need to be standardized between platform and bylaws committees.

Platform deletions should be 2/3 just like amending.

Credentialling language is a hot mess.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4TaiHF7foyyKLd0hC1CZySr_tFgHuW_aA2QJLL5ExRjzA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Secretary LNC]

Anyone can debate if they wish but I won't be in this thread - my intent is for this to be a brain dump thread - many things may never be considered but it is a no holds barred idea thread only.

We need to find a way to address handling of disputes when state parties go rogue and violate their own bylaws and violate member rights.  This was on the docket and not heard in 2022.

Platform committee deadline is far too late.

Assistant Secretary as non-LNC backup position similar to Assistant Treasurer 

[Tom Rowlette]

I think the formula that we use to allocate delegates may have changed over the decades, but the basic practice of having part of it be decided by presidential vote totals goes back at least to the early 80s.  I remember someone proposing that we do away with it, and Dick Randolph from Alaska (which was the crown jewel of the LP at the time) argued against, basically saying that states ought to be judged on their activity level instead of just their membership population.  I don't agree with his argument, even though I can respect it.

By the way, whatever we propose to do with this, it's exactly the kind of thing that Libertarians love to debate.  It'll be a fun bone for delegates to chew on.

I've daydreamed about different ways we could restructure delegate allocations.  The language needs to be cleaned up, but one way which I think we might be able to get consensus on would go something like this:

1a.  On [date X] the Secretary of the LP shall get the list of all the current dues-paying and life members of the LP and which state they live in.  Then each state/district/territory shall receive one delegate for each full 10th of 1 percent it has of the total number of Libertarians there are in the country.

1b.  At the next LNC meeting after [date X] the Secretary shall present to the LNC the delegate allocations so that they can check the math.  If everything is good, then they vote it up.  If they find a problem, they amend the delegate count and then vote it up.  If they make changes for any reason other than the math being wrong, that vote may be appealed to the JC by a petition from any 25 members of the LP.

1c.  After that LNC meeting, the Secretary shall contact each state chair and let them know how many delegates they get that year.

Something which I personally like a lot better than that, but which I think the delegates are less likely to like is this (with language needing to be cleaned up):

2a.  Each state shall have 3 times as many delegates to the national convention as they are allowed to send to the House of Representatives.  In other words, Wyoming sends 1 member to the US House, so it gets to send 3 to the national convention.  This doesn't mean you have to actually have a sitting LP House member, it means that however many people you COULD elect, you get three times that many delegates.

2b.  For any district or territory that doesn't get voting US House members, they get as many delegates as they would by population if their district or territory was a full-on state.

What I like about that second one is its simplicity and predictability, as well as the fact that the result comes pretty close to how delegates are apportioned now.  The likely objection is that "what if one state has a huge Libertarian population, but because they're clustered together they don't get represented."  My answer to that is that even in New Hampshire with the free state project, the Libertarian population density isn't all that different from the rest of the county.  In other words, there's probably not that much of a disconnect.  Besides, this is a better structure to have in place if we ever get really big. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk-z8cKf0LH22t1Ax0D73d4oB-E%3DYPyqFcd4gygksdbwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

One other thing we should tackle has come up at least twice in the history of LP conventions, and each time it's a headache for everyone to figure out.  It's when a committee puts out 3 or more reports on an issue.  One report gets to be the majority report, and the other ones are minority reports.

How it's handled is that the delegates debate between both minority reports, and then vote on which one they like better.  Then they debate that minority report against the majority report and vote on which one they like better.  Then they debate and vote on whether to adopt whichever report they chose.  It takes forever and people get confused.

We can either clean up how that happens or, better yet in my opinion, limit each committee to only be able to send out one minority report.  The downside of that is that the delegates will have fewer options handed to them, but it's not like those options are totally gone.  Proposals from bylaws or platform committees can still be amended in the regular way instead of going through a process which is going to generate a million Requests for Information asking "Where are we now in the process?" 

[Tom Rowlette]

Last quick thing for tonight.  It seems like there are two broad categories of things we're looking at changing.  One category is things related to the conventions, and the other category is things related to the LNC.  Keeping those two categories separate helps me out, and I wonder if when we're putting proposals to the delegates together we could separate them out too.

[Secretary LNC]

How we order things to the delegates is based on many factors, but that will be a decision of the committee when we get to that point, absolutely.

___________________________________________________

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%2B6WXgXP7XnoxuqyTxW%3D1HFOmQ4GZL-kLCPafs2oK0b%2BiU_k9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

1. Define the term of a delegate since it isn't defined and that creates confusion over who as a delegate can appeal an LNC decision.

2. Change the way this committee is chosen to remove all LNC selections because that's a conflict of interest; leave it all to the states.

3. Fix Chair succession language and Vice-Chair duties language in regards to acting as Chair when the seat is vacant or the Chair is absent.  There's disagreement on it.

4. Get the required suspension for cause language in and fix terms so that a "permanent suspension" is actually removal.

5. Make crystal clear the role of NOTA in all internal elective races.

6. Convention Rule to clean up balloting so that we're not there all day waiting on state delegations tallying nonsense write-ins, like a voting and tallying clock.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WkBzT1VZUWJUrQrJhVzbBgUzjv%2BuFFzupxYAPkgE88f5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dean Rodgers]

We have all seen meetings run well by some Chairmen and poorly by others, though the rules were the same for both.  How about an informal guide from the collective wisdom of this group to help any Chair to know where to stand firm and press the meeting forward and where they might be more flexible.  It can start short and be added to over the years.

 

From: Secretary LNC
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:59 PM
To: bylaws-com...@lp.org
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Informal Brainstroming thread

 

How we order things to the delegates is based on many factors, but that will be a decision of the committee when we get to that point, absolutely.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3D%2Bj2KRy%2BtUO3_GUgsGEKAEHBDgxWwpwBGBKXw--xdL%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[Secretary LNC]

Dean that is out of scope for this committee - that would be something the LNC would need to ask for or the Convention Oversight Committee can initiate.

___________________________________________________

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/CY5SPRMB00012DDD2EE08B2188035D3FD8E39%40CY5SPRMB0001.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Ken Moellman]

As a functional matter, on the committee we broke things down by article, when possible, and that seemed to work pretty well. 

I apologize for the length of this, but I like to try to stir thoughts and ideas and see what others think. 

So, on my wish-list (with some obviously more controversial than others):

* Clarify ascension/non-ascension of VC to Chair in case of vacancy. Two words: "including chair" or "excluding chair" - I don't care which way this goes, just pick one.

* Tweak to open meetings/records items to explicitly permit keeping APRC 

* Dumping approval voting for all multi-winner races. Use cumulative voting instead. Remove majority requirement; top X win. (Save a bunch of convention time)

* Changing officer elections to Ranked Choice Voting instead of multi-round runoff. (Save a bunch of convention time)

* Elect Bylaws and Platform Committees at convention (they report to convention body, why does LNC appoint them?)

* Allow other business to continue while election votes are tallied (can we consider some platform planks while we tally? yes, we can!)

* Anyone who ran for a higher office only gets 1 minute on stage for any other office they seek. (stop hogging the stage!)

* Fix all the definitions of membership. (This is horribly confusing today, as a result of the temporary period where we had no dues.)

* Fix "voting delegate" issues (delegate vs alternate, who can be on the floor and affect voice votes, codify check-out process)

* Require national membership to be a national party delegate

* Timely submission of platform and bylaw committee reports, and timely submission of "floor" amendments. (If committees are done and reports are published 60 days out, then amendments from outside the committee should be submitted 30 days out. Maybe require co-sponsorship by 20% of the voting aka checked-in delegates before opening gavel of any "floor" amendments. Then all delegates have the option to read all proposals ahead of time. Allow true floor amendments with suspension of the rules. Should save a bunch of time.)

* Loosen existing "electronic" voting requirements to allow more than Scantron, add checks-and-balances to increase delegate confidence.

* Dues tied to inflation (We chose $5 in July 1971 as the index in LPKY, because leaving the gold standard triggered the creation of the LP)

* Reduce number of delegates to National overall to approximately 950 (opens more options for venues) by reducing number allocated by presidential results.

* Add 1 day to conventions starting in 2026.

* Starting in 2026, replace LNC with State Chairs acting as a Central Committee (LNCC), who can hire/fire the Executive Committee (LNEC) at will, approve the annual budget, and can veto any action of the EC. (Decentralize the LNC while reducing daily bureaucracy, make state affiliates the focus, open future door for professional - aka paid - chair, vc, secretary, and treasurer. Reduces need to have conventions to POTUS years.) 

---

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/CY5SPRMB00012DDD2EE08B2188035D3FD8E39%40CY5SPRMB0001.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I see some commonalities which is good.  

___________________________________________________

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/df5daa21b09e987a188bbe1249ffbd82%40lpky.org.

[Roger Roots]

There seem to be constant calls for bylaws regarding the suspension, banning, expulsion, or whatever you might call it of both officers and delegates/members.    This is an issue that seems to come up fairly often. 

There seem to be enough LP members who deeply desire to toss out other members/officers/delegates that perhaps some bylaws should address this.  (Correctl me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are almost no bylaws relating to this.)

In my opinion, (1) the threshhold should be incredibly high to bring such an effort, and (2) even higher for actual removal/purge/expulsion of anyone.  And there should be extensive due process.  And such proceedings, if any, should always be at the end of convention, meeting, etc. (meaning, in practice, such proceedings would almost never occur.)  

--Roger Roots, alternate 

---

From: Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:29 PM
To: bylaws-committee-2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Subject: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Informal Brainstroming thread

 

[Secretary LNC]

The convention can, IMHO, already make those decisions and no bylaw is needed.  Putting expulsions into the bylaws is just laying a gun on the table to be used against political opponents, and I think the Party will rue the day it ever puts that into the bylaws.  Power corrupts.

___________________________________________________

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/MWHPR2001MB1021C2B987471A1F69323F22BDE09%40MWHPR2001MB1021.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Dean Rodgers]

Power corrupts when it exists without definition or limitations. Providing Definition and limits is the purpose of bylaws. A high and discouraging hurdle could be easily constructed. 

Dean C. Rodgers

(540) 649-6489

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2022, at 23:59, 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/CAGiA9WmYJDvLXOu6ZCwt1y_1Z%3Dbgy-w4dnOkCL-cJ8CqEkw8Hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dean Rodgers]

Caryn Ann,

I thought this was a forum for ideas and not debate.  Yet, I see you shooting down multiple ideas that are presented.  Why is that?

 

I see this committee’s role as being one to improve the functioning and processes of meetings.  Yes, we follow RONR and we can spend endless hours refining rules.  But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the rules must be understood and implemented by people.  Perhaps we can find ways to help people better employ the rules that already exist.  You shared with me at the recent Virginia convention that some Convention Chairs do better than others.  My proposal is an effort to follow up on your thought.

 

For instance, I see that our bylaws are loaded with time limitations for various topics.  Yet, when do Chairs stick to those limits?  Are we creating rules for the sake of simply having a rule?  That’s a petty and bureaucratic exercise.  How can we infuse a stronger spine in our Chairs to stick with the rules?  I don’t know but my suggestion proposes a set of ‘expectations’ for chairs to have at the podium.  It might seem stupid, kind of like the kids telling the parents, “Please be firm with us because we need boundaries.”  But it strikes me that there is a lot of experience and wisdom to be drawn upon in this group that does not need to wait for permission.

 

Don’t any rules, tools or good ideas produced by this committee receive oversight higher levels anyway?  I get it that time is short and only a limited amount of work can actually be accomplished.  However, please be judicious in how you apply leverage during a ‘brainstorming’ endeavor.  It can be easy to use one’s authority to chill creativity.

 

In Liberty and Respectfully.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DCE_VGztTP8gFpFAySF00gvENF74_v7h55jUBOQc3Lmg%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[Secretary LNC]

It is for both.  Mostly ideas.  Mr.  Seebeck and others have also expressed some opposition when they felt strongly.  You asked why is that?  Because like any other committee member if there are super super strong opinions it is helpful for other committee members to know that.  Particularly if I or others think something is not just something we just don't support but would be existentially harmful to the organization.

I think you also fundamentally misunderstand the role of a committee chair.  It is not be silent or neutral like on board - in fact RONR says that in committees, the chair is often the most active in debate and motions.  I personally choose not to do that to that extent with rare exception - something I believe existentially harmful to the organization is one.  Particularly in informal discussions.

Giving direction when something is out of order is another.  It is not said for anything other than guidance and help for those who have not served on national convention- related committees before.

When I think something is clearly out of scope I will say so.   That IS my job. The committee can certainly - in formal session which this is not - overrule any such decision if a formal ruling is made.  Last platform committee a member wished to pass a resolution to the LNC that they should do something.  I ruled that was out of scope.  The ruling was appealed and upheld. Two terms before that there was a complex procedural dispute I ruled on.  I was appealed and overturned.  

That is how it will work in real time.

When there is an actual proposal to consider brought by a primary representative, we shall see how it goes.  What you initially said is a tad bit different than you said here.  If a Chair does not follow existing rules and time limits, it is up to the Body to raise a point of Order.  It is also the prerogative of the Body to implicitly suspend such rules by not raising a Point of Order.

I have suggested to the CoC that there be a RONR primer or session for delegates to know their procedural rights.  While some convention chairs are better than others they are the chairs delegates selected and that is a choice to be respected.

Yes we are just a recommendation committee but our job is to produce recommendations that are in order, well firmed, actually needed, and either are likely to pass or at least even if not likely to pass are if such import deserve floor time.  We are to be judicious stewards of the time allotted us on the floor.

I'll drop a link to the recurring CoC meetings if anyone here wishes to attend as a party member.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CY5PR10MB604585280D8728D1E49AEBC3D8E09%40CY5PR10MB6045.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, I have a question for you on the scantrons - I am not even sure now they can be used with the bylaws currently requiring totals "by delegation" and being displayed in that manner - I would love your thoughts on that.  I am thinking of a few ways it can be done, but not sure it would save time except perhaps in At-Large.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

This may be controversial, but I think we should explicitly disallow write-ins.  A procedure had been put in place before for candidates to have to have nominating petitions to cut down on spur of the moment non-serious runs, but having write-ins defeats that and we saw what happened last convention.  Anyone can run - we don't have a nominating committee gatekeeper, but they need to show a modicum of seriousness and support and willingness by getting the nominating petitions.

I am curious what others think.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

Speaking as the Head Teller for the last two conventions, I heartily agree 100%!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DaPfwsqzFZBPar04yiLv4ANnjc25uNhn65pAxUw_oj8A%40mail.gmail.com.

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

We had planned to try to do Scantron at the 2020 National Convention. We were going to have nine scanners out on the floor and nine scanners with the tellers. We were going to break the States up by region, or close to that, and the chairs would then tally using their Regional Scantron. They would then turn in their ballots to the tellers, who would then rescan the ballots by state. If there would have been a discrepancy between the totals, the state chair would have been called to the front, told what was going on, and a third machine could/should/would be used to tally again.

That was our plan. We had found a vendor for software that wasn't the actual Scantron brand, which meant it worked with commodity equipment and far cheaper than Scantron branded equipment and proprietary ballot forms. We tested it at the lpky State Convention, with an unofficial preference poll for our POTUS nominee. We had a cost breakdown and I want to say it was around $9,000. And then the pandemic hit and it all got thrown out the window. 

Ken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmP-JfrTvfpJafr%3D2EKZxuq3NnLmBD3Nn4U1rVZq-H4sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Okay sounds good - I'd really like you to come to a convention committee meeting to discuss 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/12c5efb0-365c-4062-a00c-0d645b6ab15d%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

This is a work in progress but I wanted to share with you all what I am doing with this data.  I have a lot of data to still fill in, but this is how I am tracking this "brain dump"

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGcsP4RXBRwJ0tHCCh-qRu83tihkek6aGEzwVmGxxGg/edit?usp=sharing

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Tom Rowlette]

I have one more:  Use ranked choice voting for choosing Presidential and VP candidates.  That one will be controversial, I'm sure.  The outcome of our 2004 ticket would very likely have been different if we had ranked choice voting then, but at the same time it wouldn't have taken something like 7 different ballots.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wm9s5uym5HC0-fKWC-RZdPnNSkBoisYVHTSq_RQwdki0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I will add that to the list.  And I will be adding all the references to RONR and present bylaws over the coming weeks to make that list I linked to as useful as possible.  I am going to be reviewing and researching past bylaws committee reports for language we may wish to refer to.

___________________________________________________

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%2B6WXgWUfVu8X7z4eGYy0LB8eHuo-qLV1vgSNndxT18qmLziqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I am going through some old reports for good or at least good starting places of proposals that were never heard and added several to the chart

The elimination of the state by state call out for presidential rounds of voting is still unclear IMHO

And the issue of the JC Rules of Appellate Procedure needs some clarity

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

I added an interesting proposal I saw from a past report that was trying to address the concern that if we ever become eligible for matching funds, that the party will be taken by carpetbaggers for the money - not sure how I feel about the prior proposal but certainly something to talk about 

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

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

Would you be amenable to ranked choice for all single-winner elections other than POTUS?  I ask because in the past the POTUS nomination has been carried by CSPAN and its good marketing as long as we can get it.  But otherwise I fully support RCV for all single-winner elections. 

Ken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CA%2B6WXgWUfVu8X7z4eGYy0LB8eHuo-qLV1vgSNndxT18qmLziqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

The counterargument is that us using RCV getting covered by CSPAN is good marketing for election reform.....

___________________________________________________

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-2024/7380d73e-59a2-43a2-a6ab-90d49e31f43f%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

If anyone wants to help fill in RONR references for any of the ideas on the brainstorming spreadsheet let me know and I will give you edit access.  I am making good headway in filling in data, but I would like this reference to as complete as possible for our use in meetings.

PS:  I do similar spreadsheets in tracking actual proposals (anyone working with me on platcomm will be familiar with the data tracking I do)

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

Here's a later version of something I crafted in the last term for JC stuff. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_IEcVG2BxCxmf2x6JW515pmmhV9c-PCm/edit

---

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/CAGiA9W%3Dcw1K91wm0xz4Poh2tTZ8i6kj9%2Bf4JbHFYXUZ0Nj6vKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ken Moellman]

Sure, and they've covered the VP nomination before, where we would use RCV.  Just the POTUS race would be multi-round run-off.  If anything, the contrast of methods might show people just how efficient RCV actually is.

---

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/CAGiA9W%3DQbdXKKO5C5PmuDP_gaeqpwGYfvVRnygceb9j%2BH9hc%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Adding appeal qualification timing proposal from last committee

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Adding also shortening disaffiliation window from last committee report

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Moellman, I will add that to our reference documents in order to potentially canabilize language which is my purpose in gathering all these old proposals - not necessarily to use them verbatim but to stand upon and make use of the hard work of those who came before.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

If we want to consider changing the structure of the LNC, here's a proposal I wrote that would create a Central Committee structure that would appoint an Executive Committee.  There's been a push-pull in the party for some time over the size of the LNC, and I believe this would actually resolve the issues brought by both sides of that debate. It decentralizes the party itself, adding more regions, while making the executive portion smaller and therefore more nimble.  This was a compromise from just making the chairs of each affiliate a member of the LNC who then appoint the Executive Committee.  I like that better, but the large states objected to that.  So here was the compromise, which died in committee last term.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STpHDhs7l0iNmAPYENO1Ewb4kFj-_G04/edit

---

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/CAGiA9WnLhy9i2uGzBTuxD81pXz0D5bKr7agC-DNnOMNLDwC1sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Mr Moellman I can tell you I personally oppose such a thing.  Mostly due to a fundamental philosophy that these committees are not carte Blanche to make radical changes that are not demanded by members.  I further think that such a plan should have been openly put on committee application if that is a real plan.  The question on proposed changes was put in there so LNC members knew what they were supporting.  I personally felt very blindsided by some of the proposals out if last committee and that is why we asked that.

We have no mandate from delegates to be so radical.  I believe committees are to be targeted and conservative.

[Secretary LNC]

Again to be clear the committee will decide, I'm just honestly stating my view on any super radical changes.  When this was proposed in 2018 the reaction from members was a lot of anger.  I have not felt a sea change in this regard.

A more conservative change would be requiring state chair votes on super important matters or public policy resolutions and see how that goes.  

But a radical restructuring with no mandate, no studies, no testing, could literally destroy the Party.

[Ken Moellman]

It has been talked about for as long as I've been in the party; that the LNC as structured is not very functional. It's too big for a small committee and too small for a big committee. 

With the changeover in leadership and membership, generally, it may no longer be a concern; which is why I didn't take the time to transfer from the format used in the previous term to the format being used this term.  It is put here to see if anyone else on the committee wants to consider this, or not.  If it were to be considered, it would be moved into the format this committee is using, along with necessary changes (in effective dates from 2024 to 2026) to the proposal, and likely get a few other tweaks as well.

We're proposing to switch to this sort of model in KY at this upcoming convention, with the county chairs becoming the central committee choosing the state officers. The general consensus from those who support the measure in KY is that we should decentralize and put the focus on counties. The general opposition is "but democracy!" 

So it's whatever, but I just put it in this thread to see if anyone wants to consider it before I take any time to re-format it.  Different committee, different thoughts.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

[Secretary LNC]

And I always appreciate your thoughts.  Things being talked about (I've talked it many times) is much different than a mandate or real desire.  Libertarians talk a LOT.  Like they like to talk about moving the convention to the year earlier before really delving into the burdens on state parties.

But I do think if this is something we were going to do, it needed to be put on the application - I don't think blindsiding the appointing body is the right thing to do.

Now whether the LNC should be the appointing body is another issue altogether but right now they are and the appointing body does have the right to know if the persons they are appointing are intending on truly radical restructuring proposals.  My opinion that's all.  

[Ken Moellman]

Here's another proposal I had made, from the previous committee, regarding the Judicial Committee. It creates a standard process and cuts down on rendundant language.  The 2nd part (proposal #2 at the bottom) was part of the original proposal but the committee wanted me to divide off that portion, so that's how it's written up. There may have been other tweaks they had me make as well, but I don't remember anymore. I support standardizing the JC procedure, and actually having a codified trial.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_IEcVG2BxCxmf2x6JW515pmmhV9c-PCm/edit 

---

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-2024/8b99729e51a2b7770a73126ec60df8a0%40lpky.org.

[Secretary LNC]

Thank you!  There is no real appetite for JC reform I think.

To be clear I'm not the gatekeeper I'm putting these all on the list.

[Ken Moellman]

Most of my proposals are meant to spark ideas.  Some are more radical than others. :) 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.

Executive Director

Libertarian Party of Kentucky

[Secretary LNC]

You radical you :)

[Secretary LNC]

I'm supposed to be the fiery radical!

[Tom Rowlette]

I'd like to have edit access for the spreadsheet.  Unless there's objection, I'm going to (eventually - I'm in the middle of moving right now) add a new column that just says whether each proposal is something that pertains to the convention or to the LNC.

I'm interested in having a discussion about putting forward a "restructure/resize the LNC" proposal, but I'd really like that to not be something we take up at the first meeting.  I'm sure we'll debate it to death, and I expect that the convention delegates could also use the full amount of time debating the merits and only scratch the surface.  The solution to that, I believe, is having a whole lot of debate before the convention happens.  I personally don't even know how I feel about the issue, but I doubt discussion will hurt.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnqpOegHSz1EgSwehA7RQ%3DvdUkd-_VjkL3CjbcoxYpiTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I really don't want to add that detail to this sheet but there is another one I'm doing as proposals are actually made that such a column would fit into and I'll add there.

[Mike Seebeck]

Trust me, we're working on a submission on the last one.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3Dcw1K91wm0xz4Poh2tTZ8i6kj9%2Bf4JbHFYXUZ0Nj6vKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Okay the brainstorming reference spreadsheet is up to date with references and ideas up to this point.  I am working on the submitted proposal spreadsheet next with the actual proposals submitted by Bracco.  I will include the column that Mr. Rowlette requested in that spreadsheet.  I will post in separate thread when 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/CAGasu4SYnwpBm9LSgqgqjhNarw-RsoUqUUTHV%2BgSpMebrS2qaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

And there will be an ongoing timeline spreadsheet already that will get narrowed down and refined as the term progresses.

Links to all the reference documents needed will be included in every agenda so you will not be scrambling to find them all the time.  Here is an example of what a platform committee agenda looked like, the ones for this committee will be similar : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uo5HdoUHScHXF6h09teE26XHomhayzoQ/view?usp=sharing

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

First sentence:  Our Bylaws state in Article 6, Officers: The Vice Chair shall be the chief assistant to the Chair, performing such duties as the Chair shall prescribe. and holding such executive powers as the Chair shall delegate and shall perform the duties of the chair in  the event that the Chair is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office."   What is

hard to understand about that?

As to one or more seconds, everybody no matter how unsavory, has at least

one buddy to second their motions.  So perhaps more than one second should be required for a motion to be brought forward.  Maybe 10?  Not pushing for ten but just a guesstimate.

---

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

DITTO!

---

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

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 11:50:28 AM

Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Informal Brainstroming thread

Here is another perennial chestnut but I have been informally "surveying" through personal discussions people all over the country, and there are strong feelings, but my anecdotal experience is that with the events of the past few terms there is far MORE strong feeling in favour than opposed and that is requiring national delegates to be national members.   An objection in the past has been that means all delegates would have had to sign the pledge.  YES.  IT DOES.  And that is more important than ever in today's political climate.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:48 AM Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

I would like to do some research on the delegate allocation formula history and perhaps talk with Ms. Mattson on that and some Party old-timers.  You bring up a valid concern.

Yes, I agree dues need to be increased.  This was on the docket in the proposals that were not heard in 2022.

You know I dislike the regional system but there also needs to be a way to have fair representation.  If the regional system were proposed to be done away with, it would need to take effect at the following convention because people spend time and resources campaigning for those positions and it would not be fair to yank it out from under them IMHO.  Another thing I am toying with is having the conversion to at-larges with a different voting method that ensured proportional representation so that voting blocs could band together to get representation.  IF we had electronic voting we could have STV, but there is no way we are hand-calculating THAT, but cumulative voting would work.  Absent even proposal to eliminate regions, I would like to see the present at-large elected with proportional representation.  This way minority voices could plan to at least have a seat or two even if outnumbered at convention.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM 'Paul Bracco' via Bylaws Committee 2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org> wrote:

Perhaps 2024 will not be the year for these proposals as they could all cause significant controversy but I'd like to get the rest of the committee's thoughts on the following:

• Approximately 30% of our national convention delegates are allocated by way of percentage of votes for the presidential candidate. In recent years this has not created any sort of misalignment between state parties as the LP presidential campaign has achieved 50 + 1 ballot access. However, it's never sat well with me that we are basing part of the delegate allocation of each state party on presidential vote totals, which would certainly be negatively impacted if that state party were to not achieve ballot access due to either current or future onerous ballot access laws foisted upon them by their state government. I'd like to get the rest of the committee's thoughts on re-configuring delegate allocation such that all delegates are allocated based upon sustaining membership numbers only, with the percentage of sustaining membership per delegate adjusted to maintain a near-equivalent (1,045-1,055) number of national delegates. Based on my calculations if the presidential delegate allocation was struck then the sustaining membership delegate allocation percentage would need to be adjusted from 0.14% to somewhere between 0.097% and 0.0972% to maintain a near-equivalent total delegate allocation. I'd also wish to insert language to ensure that no affiliate is allocated less than 3 delegates.

• I'd like to see the committee put forward some form of dues increase proposal. As far as I can tell from the historical bylaws that I've been able to find, the sustaining dues have been set at $25 per year since at least 2006. Perhaps the delegates will not wish to increase dues, but given the significant inflation since 2006 I think we should at least consider it.

• Perhaps the most controversial idea is a re-structure the LNC, specifically removing the regional system and increasing the number of at large representatives from 5 to 14. I would be very open to packaging this with some kind of alternative voting method for the at large election, but I'm not personally knowledgeable enough about all the different kind of voting methods that we could use so I'd want to lean on either other members of the committee who have that knowledge or experts among the party membership for suggestions on which method would be the best.

I fully understand if the committee would rather not touch these topics given the controversy (or controversies) that are highly likely to result so I will not take offense if some or all of these suggestions are not brought forward.

Paul Bracco

Vice Chair - Libertarian Party of Virginia

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, December 12th, 2022 at 8:16 AM, Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

Things are very broke.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:43 AM Sylvia Arrowwood <sarro...@homesc.com> wrote:

More than one second sounds good to me. Custom, needs to be challenged

if you want to get rid of it. It takes a Majority Vote. If ain't broke, don't need

fixin. See 2;19.

My initial thoughts. Could be wrong. Great believer in not making Bylaws

longer than absolutely necessary.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/701684618.63601071.1670841805503.JavaMail.zimbra%40homesc.com.

--
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/CAGiA9Wmk8EL25VbvCd2WbHnkt-vZeZaYtTjb5pesGr-Xn868dw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/GvmuNLSN_Anp5c83a9Rm0Z4nEwO1QOkYcbfCqVoItIikJq_3fGeb9sUxpD9EoKbsdsnSgiXuELGzHl6cDe1o7wp9WGAacCnq28R-LTwy-GU%3D%40protonmail.com.

--
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%3DECJJUrKDMWzcPsoTLfu7ZHzHoW8-oBZ2AJyK03oQNMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Hello all!

While going through the process of promulgating new rules of appellate procedure for the Judicial Committee, a question arose as to the Judicial Committee's ability to amend the rules of appellate procedure. Recall that the terms of Judicial Committee members are now four years, not two years. So, there may be a need during that four-year term to amend the rules of appellate procedure. (Those in the legal profession may be familiar with the rulemaking process in which courts engage on an almost monthly or at least annual basis.)

There is a consensus among the members of the Judicial Committee that the committee already has the ability under both the Party Bylaws and RONR to amend its rules of appellate procedure under the same procedure set forth in the Bylaws.

That said, it would answer the question of the Judicial Committee's ability to amend the rules of appellate procedure by making that authority explicit in the Bylaws.

So, here is a proposal to add to this brainstorming thread to make explicit the Judicial Committee's ability to amend the rules of appellate procedure more frequently than just once per four-year term.

---

8.3. Within 90 days following the regular convention at which elected, the Judicial Committee shall establish rules of appellate procedure to govern its consideration of matters within the scope of its jurisdiction. The existing Rules shall remain in effect until and unless the Judicial Committee submits new proposed rules to the National Committee for approval, which approval shall be deemed given unless denied by a 2/3 vote of the National Committee within 60 days of submission, upon which denial the previously existing rules shall be reinstated. The Judicial Committee may also amend the rules of appellate procedure from time to time, subject to the same approval procedure.  A copy of the current rules of appellate procedure shall be maintained by the Secretary at the Party Headquarters and shall be available to any member at cost.

---

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Secretary LNC]

I think you should make this an official proposal at this point using the form.  I actually disagree with the current JC that they can amend their rules right now - I can see that interpretation but I can also see how this can only be done during the 90 day window and that is how many understood it in the past.

___________________________________________________

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-2024/90a0b49d-fd2f-4b48-b214-10fb5c1955ccn%40lp.org.

[Rob Latham]

Is data on the number of past national convention delegates -- broken down by the number of delegates who were national Party members and the number of delegates who were not national Party members but members of an affiliate party -- available?

This information would be useful in understanding the implications of removing the phrase "or an affiliate party" from Art. 10, Sec. 2.a. (" Delegates shall be required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party.")    

If such data is available, please post a link here or direct me to where I (and others) may find it.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

P.S.:  My sense is that the following Sec. 2.b. ought to remain to allow members of affiliate parties who are not national Party members to have a voice in national convention delegate selection.

2.b.  "Any federal or state law to the contrary notwithstanding, delegates to a regular convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party; provided however, that only members of the Party as defined in these bylaws, or members of the affiliate party as defined in the constitution or bylaws of such affiliate party, shall be eligible to vote for the selection of delegates to a regular convention."

[Secretary LNC]

I will have to research that.  

___________________________________________________

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-2024/4c6870de-6e0f-44a5-b86e-9f155951dc7fn%40lp.org.

[Secretary LNC]

I checked delegate lists from credentialling - no it is not available.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Rob Latham]

Thank you for checking ... Credentials Committee seems like the first place to look if such data existed.

Perhaps this question deserves its own discussion thread, but do some want to venture a guesstimate as to the percentage of past national convention members who fall into either category? 

Is it 90/10, national/affiliate?

Is it 50/50?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

[Secretary LNC]

We have no records of initial credentialling, that is not required to be kept and their findings are not preserved on their final report.

I could not guess.  Some states require national membership so that would skew a "natural" percentage anyways.  I can write the past two-term credentials chair to see if she has any sense of it.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Paul Bracco]

Mr. Latham,

It might be worth looking at the bylaws of state affiliates as some might already require national sustaining membership in order to qualify as a delegate to the national convention. I know Virginia requires this, even though sustaining membership is not required to participate in the state party in all other capacities.

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/CAGiA9Wmh7x-6Cx_aXSRmBa80zXiFVJWpY73suQx-kh5VgOrjMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Martin]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:51 PM 'Paul Bracco' via Bylaws Committee 2024 <bylaws-com...@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Latham,

It might be worth looking at the bylaws of state affiliates as some might already require national sustaining membership in order to qualify as a delegate to the national convention. I know Virginia requires this, even though sustaining membership is not required to participate in the state party in all other capacities.

 

We are a new affiliate, but our bylaws work the same way.

--

Frank Martin

Chairman, Free Libertarian Party of New Mexico

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/fNYiSSjbXiVpw00_U80u_UIBfbdcw1KVM9OeIot2srQan-9UqYXUijwZDCsnW6x4k9XZAb3PMxBBqPhrmVFMmiobEkp90Fe61r7wcOQzPmE%3D%40protonmail.com.

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

Ky requires people are national sustaining members on the day the delegation numbers are calculated. 

We actually may be able to figure this ratio out for 2020 and 2022 depending on how diligent the credentials committee was, because we have membership history that can be calculated and we had delegate relationships too. 

Ken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/fNYiSSjbXiVpw00_U80u_UIBfbdcw1KVM9OeIot2srQan-9UqYXUijwZDCsnW6x4k9XZAb3PMxBBqPhrmVFMmiobEkp90Fe61r7wcOQzPmE%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Thanks everybody.

Have created an informal spreadsheet on affiliate rules for national convention delegate eligibility (national Party membership and affiliate party only membership) at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DDylEOUUjJ7Entj7BvGNsDm-hNYNSm0EPoWXmAK9WKE/edit?usp=sharing

[Sylvia Arrowwood]

South Carolina is same as Virginia.  If you want to participate in National's

business, you must be a member.  As to South Carolina's business, you

must be member also. 

---

From: "Frank" <fr...@fundimensions.com>
To: "bylaws-committee-2024" <bylaws-com...@lp.org>
Cc: "Rob Latham" <freeu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:30:36 PM
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Re: Informal Brainstroming thread

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAPSOdkk1s9scHLEEq_Gn_gS82B3bJ040zVTysHxY2%2BM3uRsWLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Following up on Mr. Seebeck's post about approaching the convention delegate allocation algorithm from a different direction -- and mindful that I don't math all that well ;-) -- this idea came to mind:

Assume a total allocation of 1000 delegates.

150 of those delegates are based on the idea that each affiliate is entitled to at least three delegates, leaving 850 remaining delegates to allocate.

Split the 850 delegates into two groups: one group allocated by the percentage of sustaining membership and the other group allocated by the percentage of presidential vote totals. Splitting those groups equally would yield 425 delegates for each group.

Pages 28-30 of a past delegation chair's manual (2020) show how the percentages could be broken down for delegate allocation.

https://lpedia.org/w/images/7/78/2020_Delegation_Chair%27s_Manual.pdf

Using Alabama (AL) as an example for the allocation based on sustaining membership, the table shows that AL had a sustaining membership that was 1.357% of the total.

So (and here's where I suspect my math may be problematic), 425 delegates multiplied by 0.01357 yields 5.7. (And it seems another problem arises: round up or round down? If we round up, do we end up with more than 425 (and thus more than 1,000) delegates? And if we round down, do we end up with fewer than 425 (and thus fewer than 1,000) delegates?)

Again using Alabama (AL) as an example for the allocation based on presidential vote totals, the table shows that AL had a presidential vote total that was 0.991% of the total.

So, 425 delegates multiplied by 0.00991 yields 4.2.

Using this method, does AL get 3 + 6 (rounding up from 5.7) + 4 (rounding down from 4.2) = 13 delegates? (which is the same number of delegates allocated to the Alabama affiliate for the 2020 convention)?

Or does AL get 3 + 5 (rounding down from 5.7) + 4 (rounding down from 4.2) = 12 delegates?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

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

I have some different math to propose on this. Just tweak down the allocation for presidential and increase the allocation for Bylaws "Sustaining" Membership.  

If we are going to give States an allocation simply for being an affiliate that disincentivizes people even trying to push memberships in the small States. They're going to get 3 no matter what, so they don't even need to re-up their own national membership. If this is to be a thing, I strongly urge the number of automatic delegates be 1 not 3. And then the rest of the equation should round down instead of up. That may mitigate some of my concerns on that point. 

There are a number of states where ballot access hinges on presidential results. My state in particular - Kentucky - where it's the only test, is an example. So I do want us to have support for POTUS and try to get to 50+DC. I do want states to have skin in that game to make it happen because being on all or almost all ballots gives legitimacy to the candidate, which boosts results. 

But I definitely would rather see a greater focus on membership with allocations from presidential results just being a bonus. 

Ken

--

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-2024/323652c1-4871-4662-b6e1-16a40f7a4c0en%40lp.org.

[Rob Latham]

Am not wedded to an automatic delegate allocation. Indeed, my sense in working with these numbers and the existing bylaws rounding up will yield at least two delegates per affiliate; one from the sustaining membership allocation and one from the presidential vote allocation.

Will use the DC (District of Colombia) affiliate because I neglected to include it in my last example (sorry, DC affiliate!) and Vermont (VT), as they (along with Rhode Island (RI) had the lowest delegate allocations (three) for the 2020 convention, along with the Indiana (IN) affiliate to see how adjustments to the formula may affect larger affiliates.

And answering my own question on rounding up or rounding down, I noticed the "fraction thereof" language in the delegate chair's manual and Art. 10, Sec. 3; right now we're rounding up. Of course, that could be changed.

Here's the current formula for delegate allocation based on sustaining membership totals:

  a. One delegate for each 0.14 percent, or fraction thereof, of the total Party sustaining membership in that affiliate; provided that at least one such delegate must be a resident of that State or District.  

Here's the current formula for delegate allocation based on presidential vote totals:

  b. One delegate for each 0.35 percent, or fraction thereof, of the votes cast nationwide for the Libertarian Party candidate in the most recent presidential election, cast in that affiliate's state. If a state conducts its presidential election via Ranked-Choice or Instant Runoff Voting, the ballots for the Libertarian candidate as tabulated in the first round of ballot counting will be used for this purpose.

Here's how I understand that formula works:

Delegates based on affiliate's presidential vote percentage = percentage of presidential vote divided by 0.35 percent

Sustaining Membership 2020 DC: 0.276% / 0.14% = 1.9, or two delegates (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Sustaining Membership 2020 VT: 0.262% / 0.14% = 1.8, or two delegates (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Sustaining Membership 2020 IN: 2.887% / 0.14% = 20.6, or 21 delegates (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Pres Vote 2020 DC: 0.109% / 0.35% = 0.3, or one delegate (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Pres Vote 2020 VT:  0.224% / 0.35% = 0.6, or one delegate (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Pres Vote 2020 IN: 2.985% / 0.35% = 8.5, or nine delegates  (matching the result in the 2020 Delegation Chair's Manual)

Also noticed that the current formula allocates more delegates for sustaining membership than presidential vote totals. For the 2020 convention, 735 of the 1046 (70%) delegates were based on sustaining membership and 311 of the 1046 (30%) delegates were based on presidential vote totals.

Increasing the denominator for either calculation lowers the number of delegates. For example, doubling the denominator for sustaining membership allocations from 0.14 percent to 0.28 percent yields these results:

Sustaining Membership 2020 DC: 0.276% / 0.28% = .9, or one delegate

Sustaining Membership 2020 VT: 0.262% / 0.28% = .9, or one delegate

Sustaining Membership 2020 IN: 2.887% / 0.28% = 10.3, or 11 delegates

So, it appears that doubling the denominator reduces the number of delegates by about half.

What happens if the sustaining membership denominator is increased from 0.14% to 0.15%?

Hypothetical 2026 convention using the aforementioned algorithm and the affiliates with the largest sustaining memberships -- California (CA)), Texas (TX), and Florida (FL) :

2026 CA: 10.535% / 0.15% = 70.2, or 71 (2020 sustaining member allocation was 76, so difference is -5 delegates)

2026 TX: 7.558% / 0.15% = 50.4, or 51  (2020 sustaining member allocation was 54, so difference is -3 delegates)

2026 FL: 5.553% / 0.15% = 36.9, or 37  (2020 sustaining member allocation was 40, so difference is -3 delegates)


Seems like we could get closer to (although no guarantee of being exactly at) 1,000 delegates by just changing the sustaining membership denominator from 0.14% to 0.15%.

Someone out there probably has the spreadsheet to plug in 0.15% and see what results it yields.

[Secretary LNC]

Can I ask a more fundamental question?  For Bracco's proposal I understand why he wants to change.  So this isn't in regards to his proposal.

For any others, WHY do we need a change?  I am very reluctant of change for the sake of change.  And since I saw at least one reason given (so that the convention committee can have a set number) that is not a real problem whatsoever, I start to get a bit alarmed that we are doing something just to do it.  What precisely is broken here?  I understand Bracco's concern but what CLEARLY are the other problems?  

___________________________________________________

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-2024/53b3e483-629c-4daf-9c43-431f00bafb81n%40lp.org.

[Mike Seebeck]

What the problem is that this formulaic nonsense truly doesn't need to be in a document that addresses structure of the organization, not data calculations.  It's a relic of a time when the Bylaws were even more of a mess than they are now.  These are Bylaws, not an NIH study.

And I shall quote Seebeck's Law here: Just because it has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it should continue to be done that way, or that it's the right way.

People read that part of the Bylaws and their eyes glaze over and they tune out the rest of the document.  Hard decimal data calculation points are not candidates for Bylaws; that's not to be conflated with calendar deadlines or whole numbers of group construction like committees or even a dues amount.

The fact that this committee is getting axle-wrapped over it proves that point.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DikvO9knKewdpA%2BGUV3FRu-6RziRVXN%2BhBnAmUJLme6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Data calculation can be part of structure.

I caution the committee to not get in the mindset that are better or smarter than those who can before.  We are not.  This is a job to be approached with humility and respect.  

Every set of bylaws has issues.  These have been neglected a bit due to internal Party strife and have some critical issues.

They are are not a mess and we are not saviours.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4Sj-4doMDyNAvKwUQO%2BxSOMr%2B_%2B%2BTPYPHgmE8GYwK_qeA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Mike Seebeck]

No, they are not part of a structure, says this Systems Engineer, anymore than the number of Presidential votes earned last election cycle.  Data calculations feed processes and algorithms, not organizational structure.  That's a fundamental aspect of how systems and organizations and structures are built, and there's a small mountain of information out there about it beyond mere construction of Bylaws.

And yes, the Bylaws are a mess. It's part of the reason their style is inconsistent and the fact that these discussions are even occurring.  

That is my expert opinion, and I stand by it.

And nobody is arguing that we're better, either.  Do not make assumptions like that.  What we are doing is fixing problems that have either not been addressed before because nobody saw them or genuine improvements that experience has shown help.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wneen1Gsce%3Dw2deQuM1PjTJ%3DksG-Z-zzz2Zjf4hZZWZWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

No one on this committee is a bylaws expert, I'm sorry.  None of us would be qualified so in a court of law.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4Tbe7F8uqN%3D_eNQ-40akSxTzMeY3pYQMLmu3fBr4JdmsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Just answering for me,  although am mindful of other concerns as well, I'm focused on two aspects of delegate allocation at present:

1. getting the total number of delegates at or under 1,000 because it increases the number of venues at which a national convention can be sited (perhaps Mr. Kraus, whom I've copied, or others can address this).

2. getting a delegate allocation mix that is representative of Party members and aligns with Party objectives

In liberty,

Rob Latham

P.S.: Would love to see a LPNatCon held in conjunction with a FreedomFest or other large libertarian gatherings to facilitate networking among the larger libertarian movement.

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-7 secr...@lp.org wrote:

Can I ask a more fundamental question?  For Bracco's proposal I understand why he wants to change.  So this isn't in regards to his proposal.

For any others, WHY do we need a change?  I am very reluctant of change for the sake of change.  And since I saw at least one reason given (so that the convention committee can have a set number) that is not a real problem whatsoever, I start to get a bit alarmed that we are doing something just to do it.  What precisely is broken here?  I understand Bracco's concern but what CLEARLY are the other problems?  

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

That's not the standard and *you know it.*  

And having co-written Bylaws for two states directly, one indirectly, multiple local affiliates, and a Bylaws template for multiple levels, I am an expert on it.  That includes the alleged "best in the country."

Frankly, this is beyond absurd.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk94VOy%3DBN-uoY7MS3gcnwCPoBBZJ8UGh2KuZUUw6_TKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Screw this.  I'm done with this for today.  I have more important things to do than waste my time arguing this, including preparing for my business trip.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wk94VOy%3DBN-uoY7MS3gcnwCPoBBZJ8UGh2KuZUUw6_TKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

We are all equals here.  Some have skills in some areas and some in others.  The CO bylaws received the honor of best in country in 2018, long before you or I had much of a hand in them.  That honor goes to Jeff Orrok who carried that burden for years.

I have a lot of experience in bylaws including helping troubled affiliates fix there.  I am not an expert. Expertise in bylaws includes extensive experience outside the Libertarian universe which I've only gotten a peak at showing me our insular world can blind us to weaknesses.  

We were all chosen for all skills and experience.  None of us are experts over each other.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4QZJOftizw7xz97Le7szT1k0J%2BmgpQzataOZEussDma3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

On a different topic, how easy/hard would it be to generate a random list of sustaining Party members or convention attendees (say, from the CRM)?

The concept is sortition, or democratic lotteries.

Sortition could be used to select national convention delegates from sustaining Party members.

Sortition could be used to select at-large members of the Libertarian National Committee from national convention attendees (or from sustaining Party members).

Sortition could be used to select Judicial Committee members from sustaining Party members who have at least four years of "seasoning."

Thinking ahead to a scenario in which a selected Party member declines to serve, that Party member could then nominate another Party member to serve (this is so as to increase the likelihood that the nominated Party member would be aligned with the same cohort as the randomly-selected Party member).

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

IMO, bylaws are mostly structural, but membership rights also need to be codified. 

Membership rights are affected in a system that limits the number of delegates to the convention, because the weight of various viewpoints is affected. Setting a delegate allocation formula in bylaws makes sense to me for that reason. Otherwise the board would be left able to make such rules, and that would likely be disastrous. 

My personal view of ideal bylaws is (1) structure, (2) membership rights, and (3) requirements and regulation of the board.  And on that latter point I like to see more of the 'thou shall not' than anything else, and most of those have to do with money (eg. Thall shall not vote to pay your friends. Thall shall not hire contractors without an open bidding process. And so on.) 

Ken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DQQ6f3%3DuAXeRkGRFM7HxHsTK8E0XEDyUq7MXKU0HFB2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I absolutely agree with you Mr. Moellman - might differ a wee bit on the final part.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/fb482c2d-72ce-4104-9ba5-417f6dd38e3c%40email.android.com.

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

From a technical standpoint, we could definitely draw names. 

We discussed sortition based on membership last term. I really like the idea originally, but then I started thinking about what it would practically mean. Most of our actual members aren't involved in the day-to-day operations of the party. You would be dragging in some random person who just wants to donate money for Liberty into intraparty drama. And since we can't compel people to serve people would just bow out anyway and the only people who would be willing to serve would be those who have invested interest. So it would actually be less random than a Judicial committee election done months ahead of the controversy du jour.

I like the convention delegate mechanism better, but for the JC I still think it'll end up being a jury that is specifically biased based on the drama of the week.

We got rid of at large positions in Kentucky entirely. I was hesitant about this originally but it really has worked out for the best. We found that most of the time the at large positions were useless due to them not having any defined purpose. And I don't know that we could compel people to spend thousands of dollars a year to fly around to LNC meetings. 

We also got rid of the judicial Committee in Kentucky because we have annual conventions and special conventions. We can resolve issues by assembling the membership. At the national side I think having the judicial committee selected well ahead of the controversy is probably the best scenario, other than not having the controversy at all.

I have personally come to favor systems that decentralize governance by increasing Regional representation and decreasing overarching positions like at Large. For the lnc this doesn't need to be a radical change. It could take the form of changing over to having 15 regions instead of 10 and getting rid of the at large representatives.

Just my quick thoughts on it. I'm interested in counter arguments. 

I like to brainstorm and throw stuff out to see if anyone else thinks its a good idea. 

I punched this out on my phone and half of it was done with talk to text so ignore all the weird typos and stuff.

Ken

--

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-2024/065d69bf-abac-4103-8529-460dfc2b4e4fn%40lp.org.

[Secretary LNC]

My issue with this is philosophical as to the nature of this çommittee.  This is a radical radical change that we NOWHERE were given a mandate to do, and I would hazard a guess that the appointing committee would like would have found such a thing disqualifying if it had been on the original application as a plan.  We are not here to make changes for the sake of making changes.  We are here to fine tune - in response to a mixture of best practices and problems that cropped up over the years.  We need to reflect the grass roots and tradition and custom and needs of the Party.  Not just come up with things out of left field and be solutions in search of problems.

___________________________________________________

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-2024/7bfb5116-28ff-475e-a7b2-98061f91896e%40email.android.com.

[Secretary LNC]

If you asked the average active member that is aware of our bylaws and convention last few years what are problems are you would hear things like this (and I don't agree all of them are "problems" but this is what the members' needs have been)

Why don't we select our presidential candidates earlier
Overriding the will of delegates in a political revenge move to remove an officer (not asking you to agree with that statement, but the LNC got more emails on that issue than anything - well over a thousand)

Voting takes too long at conventions

The write-ins were ridiculous

Why don't we have electronic voting

Things take too long in general at convention and people abuse the microphone

We ran out of time to do business

Proportional representation might be a good idea

The region system (some love, some hate)

THOSE are the sorts of things that members have saw as an issue.  Not how can we radically change the delegate selection process.  We put in our report things that just seem like they came from nowhere, the delegates will not trust us, and even very good proposals will be harmed.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Oh I would add - relationship of LNC and affiliates and what is the proper mode of handling a "rogque board"

I am sure others can come up with very common ones.  And the core issues members always care about, member rights, the interplay of state and national autonomy.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Rob Latham]

This is the brainstorming thread. ;-)

I don't see sortition as a method for selecting LPNatCon delegates as one that I favor, or would be adopted by LPNatCon delegates for the foreseeable future.

That said, I view our outdated internal electoral methods as contributing to some of the problems we are here to try and solve. And although I prefer the intentionality of proportional ranked choice voting -- where delegates express a preference -- electoral system scholars argue that sortition yields proportional outcomes that are pretty comparable to those achieved via traditional proportional representation electoral methods.

Bringing sortition into the conversation provides contrast to both the electoral methods being used currently, as well as those electoral methods for which the Party's platform advocates (such as proportional representation). And, in a pinch, if the use of electronic balloting to administer a proportional ranked choice voting election were not feasible at a given time, convention delegates could "call an audible" and use sortition instead.

(My sense is that the Judicial Committee is the strongest candidate if sortition were to be tried. If you requested a jury, would you want a jury selected by the same method that elected the body whose decision you are appealing?)

First, thank you Mr. Moellman for your reply on our capacity to randomly draw names, and a summary of the last B&RComm's discussion of sortition (and what the LPKY has done in relation to related matters.)

I favor adding some proportionality to Party elections because of the representational distortions that single member districts create. Our bylaws create two types of single member districts: each affiliate that elects national convention delegates and region representatives, and the regions themselves. An electoral method called Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) is designed to compensate for district-created representational distortions with a compensating proportional electoral process, although I don't see the MMPR method as workable for the Party for the foreseeable future. There are plenty of resources out there explaining MMPR, but here's a link to a 4 1/2 minute video for those who are curious:

https://youtu.be/QT0I-sdoSXU

Second, thank you Madam Chair for providing a list of problems that implementing proportional ranked choice voice to the Bylaws and Rules can help solve. (Interlineated responses in bold green below.)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:18:12 PM UTC-7 secr...@lp.org wrote:

If you asked the average active member that is aware of our bylaws and convention last few years what are problems are you would hear things like this (and I don't agree all of them are "problems" but this is what the members' needs have been)

Why don't we select our presidential candidates earlier agree with moving up our nominating convention earlier, but proportional ranked choice voting does not necessary solve this problem (although it could, but for the sake of showcasing three types of electoral methods at a LPNatCon I favor: multi-round elections for presidential and vice-presidential nominees, ranked choice voting for Party officers, and proportional ranked choice voting for at-large and Judicial Committee members) 
Overriding the will of delegates in a political revenge move to remove an officer (not asking you to agree with that statement, but the LNC got more emails on that issue than anything - well over a thousand) making at-large members and the Judicial Committee elected through more proportional methods helps solve this problem

Voting takes too long at conventions implementing electronic balloting to facilitate ranked choice voting helps solve this problem

The write-ins were ridiculous we seem to have a separate fix for this in the works, but implementing electronic balloting to facilitate ranked choice voting could also help solve this problem

Why don't we have electronic voting implementing electronic balloting helps solve this problem ;-)

Things take too long in general at convention and people abuse the microphone as to the first part, implementing electronic balloting to facilitate ranked choice voting helps solve this problem. I'd love to see more time at conventions for things other than party business, and implementing more efficient internal election processes helps accomplish that

We ran out of time to do business implementing electronic balloting to facilitate ranked choice voting helps solve this problem

Proportional representation might be a good idea making at-large members and the Judicial Committee elected through more proportional methods helps solve this problem

The region system (some love, some hate) making at-large members and the Judicial Committee elected through more proportional methods helps solve this problem

THOSE are the sorts of things that members have saw as an issue.  Not how can we radically change the delegate selection process.  We put in our report things that just seem like they came from nowhere, the delegates will not trust us, and even very good proposals will be harmed.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 3:11 PM Secretary LNC <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

My issue with this is philosophical as to the nature of this çommittee.  This is a radical radical change that we NOWHERE were given a mandate to do, and I would hazard a guess that the appointing committee would like would have found such a thing disqualifying if it had been on the original application as a plan.  We are not here to make changes for the sake of making changes.  We are here to fine tune - in response to a mixture of best practices and problems that cropped up over the years.  We need to reflect the grass roots and tradition and custom and needs of the Party.  Not just come up with things out of left field and be solutions in search of problems.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

Implementing proportional representation in these minimal ways will better connect the party with its grass roots, traditions, customs, and needs.

By the way, I found a past proposed rule to use proportional ranked choice voting (also known as the single-transferable vote method) to elect at-large members.

See https://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2009/03/single-transferable-voting-for-lnc-at.html

[Secretary LNC]

Very fair point it's brainstorming thread.  I did not notice that.

--

[Secretary LNC]

I add that reference to the brainstorming thread (ie prior PPV proposal)

[Secretary LNC]

(And you don't have to sell me on IRV and STV - I'm already a huge fan :)

[Dean Rodgers]

Madam Chair,

Is there a charter or some other guiding document for this committee?  This is the second time (perhaps more?) you’ve indicated we are outside our remit.  Could you please share that guidance with us so we can keep ourselves ‘within bounds’?  Thanks.

 

Dean Rodgers

Last Alternate

 

From: Secretary LNC
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 5:12 PM
To: bylaws-com...@lp.org
Subject: Re: BYLAWS-COMMITTEE Re: Informal Brainstroming thread

 

My issue with this is philosophical as to the nature of this çommittee.  This is a radical radical change that we NOWHERE were given a mandate to do, and I would hazard a guess that the appointing committee would like would have found such a thing disqualifying if it had been on the original application as a plan.  We are not here to make changes for the sake of making changes.  We are here to fine tune - in response to a mixture of best practices and problems that cropped up over the years.  We need to reflect the grass roots and tradition and custom and needs of the Party.  Not just come up with things out of left field and be solutions in search of problems.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wmk9Z2c9FnZgUQ%3DUbCoKpptejGTg%3D-qQTf9DotXCXv7Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[David Roberson]

As to concerns raised by the overall membership and as a new member myself, electronic RCV seems appropriate and we absolutely need to select presidential candidates earlier (and allow them to select running mates themselves) in order to be competitive. I don’t presume to change bylaws at large to this effect, but from a rational and philosophical basis, these two measures seem entirely common sense and unarguable.

#twocents

David

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2023, at 7:06 PM, Dean Rodgers <deancr...@hotmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/IA1PR10MB605250A85E6038588E5F0C7DD8C89%40IA1PR10MB6052.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Secretary LNC]

No, it's just a difference of philosophy.  The committee can choose to have a different philosophy as the decisions are always of the committee.  I know what's generally expected by members as a reversal culture and I know what considerations factored in the decisions of the appointing body and why certain questions were asked on the application.

Once appointed we have NO obligation to the appointing body (some disagree there but that's my view) but I would be remiss not to say that if anyone disclosed plans for radical changes that were not generated grass roots, the appointments would likely have been different.  People can care about that or not.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/183CF82B-DCFD-4F79-BC7F-35443CDADCAF%40gmail.com.

--

[Secretary LNC]

Mr. Roberson the bylaws already allow an earlier convention.  That is a decision of the LNC and usually decided by the term prior to the actual term during which candidates are selected.