Moulton opinions: what to keep, what to cut, importance, and ordering

[Chuck Moulton]

Colleagues,

The following are my opinions on what proposals we should keep in the
report, what proposals we should cut from the report, how important the
proposals are, and what order we should present the kept proposals at
the convention. I included some editorial comments with my opinions on
which proposals I support, which I oppose, why they should be done ASAP
or can wait another 2 years, and whether I would join in a minority report.

Sorry it is not as cleverly organized as Mr. Latham's meal analogy. I
appreciate the effort he put into that.

In Liberty,
Dr. Chuck Moulton




Keep in report (in order of importance: most to least):

Proposal RR - Re-Structure LNC (support, more important than the rest of
the proposals combined, minority report: proviso to take effect next
convention)

Proposal B - Raise Membership Dues (support, current dues not
financially sustainable -- why LP News was discontinued --, minority
report for gradual rise rather than sticker shock of immediate doubling:
e.g. $10 more every 2 years until catch up to inflation)

Proposal S - Refine Dues Definition (support, clarification absolutely
necessary)

Proposal P1 - Add Electronic Balloting (support, save a lot of
convention time)

Proposal SS - Cumulative Voting (support, approval voting needs to die
in a fire)

Proposal R - Add RCV Voting for Officers (support, save a lot of
convention time, practice what we preach)

Proposal NN - Removal of Office (support, big issue that will repeat)

Proposal F - Clarify Procedure on Dropping Candidates (support, smoother
convention procedure)

Proposal H - Standardize Committee Rules (support, smoother convention
procedure)

Proposal J - Rising Seconds (support, smoother convention procedure)

Proposal QQ - Candidate Nominations (support, important clarification,
minority report: change "and" to "or")

Proposal MM - Clarify Quorum Issues (oppose, will waste a lot of
convention time losing quorum, minority report for check-out procedure
or decreasing quorum fraction)

Proposal K - Change Timing of Platform Committee Appointments (support,
low priority)

Proposal M - Change Timing of Credentials Committee Appointments
(support, low priority)






Cut from report (in order of importance: most to least):

Proposal O - Add Notice Requirements (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal BB - Put Time Limit on LNC Appeals (support, worked fine for 50
years)

Proposal Q - Protect Preamble (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal P - Balloting Rules Rewrite (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal A - Chair Ascension Procedure (support, very rare event)

Proposal PP - National Delegate Qualifications (support, increases
investment of stakeholders)

Proposal N - Limit Committee Alternates (support, low priority)

Proposal AA - Limit Alternate Allocations (support, low priority)

Proposal T - Clean Up Committee Procedures (support, worked fine for 50
years)

Proposal HH - Limit Minority Report (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal L - Change Delegate Allocation Formula (support, worked fine
for 50 years)

Proposal I - Change Plaform Token Deletion Vote Threshold (support, low
priority)

Proposal U - Clean Up Affiliation Language & Responsibilities (support,
worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal G - Clarify Procedure for Appellate Rules (support, worked fine
for 50 years)

Proposal KK - Resignations (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal C - Clarify Membership Definition (support, low priority)

Proposal TT - Delegate Counts (support, worked fine for 50 years)

Proposal E - Change Platform Deletion Threshold (oppose, it's better as is)

Proposal CC - Clean up Statist Language (oppose, worked fine for 50
years, don't like "affiliation chair" language; would prefer "affiliate
chair")

Proposal EE - Resolve Affiliate Disputes (oppose, will create a lot more
problems, minority report with different approach)






Suggested ordering at convention:

1. Proposal K - Change Timing of Platform Committee Appointments (seems
slam dunk -- get people in the habit of voting yes)

2. Proposal M - Change Timing of Credentials Committee Appointments
(seems slam dunk)

3. Proposal S - Refine Dues Definition (seems slam dunk)

4. Proposal B - Raise Membership Dues (will be controversial, but
important and related to S)

5. Proposal RR - Re-Structure LNC (most important -- must get to this
and have sufficient time)

6. Proposal NN - Removal of Office (important, but will probably pass
easily after a bit of debate)

7. Proposal R - Add RCV Voting for Officers (should be pretty popular)

8. Proposal SS - Cumulative Voting (put the voting proposals all in a row)

9. Proposal P1 - Add Electronic Balloting (keep rolling with voting
proposals)

10. Proposal F - Clarify Procedure on Dropping Candidates (seems slam dunk)

11. Proposal H - Standardize Committee Rules (put convention procedure
proposals all in a row)

12. Proposal J - Rising Seconds (keep rolling with convention procedures)

13. Proposal MM - Clarify Quorum Issues (important clarification)

14. Proposal QQ - Candidate Nominations (important clarification)

[Secretary LNC]

I am starting to see some consensus - my strong disagreement with you is on notice requirements and resolving affiliate disputes.  

___________________________________________________

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-2024/5545da9b-995a-c739-6cb6-9934fa598717%40moulton.org.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you for sharing your insights, Dr. Moulton.

The order I've shared has changed somewhat based on the input of others and further reflection. Will post in a few days.

Proposal CC - Clean up Statist Language (oppose, worked fine for 50
years, don't like "affiliation chair" language; would prefer "affiliate
chair")

 The highlighted language shouldn't be in the proposal that passed. If it is, I request a correction.

Sorry it is not as cleverly organized as Mr. Latham's meal analogy. I
appreciate the effort he put into that.

Not much effort at all. A few of us discussed "appetizers" ... and then the conversation turned to other food ... in the post-meeting chat. So that was on my mind when I prepared an outline.

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:40 PM Chuck Moulton <ch...@moulton.org> wrote:

[Secretary LNC]

Please check last town hall report and let me know if language is correct.

___________________________________________________

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/CAOKuKGkoFO29qnRT_FVNGSqdRLMfq7A7dTT26vqSKTwxjLdhCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Checked the last draft town hall report -- filename: Unordered Draft report 20240126 -- and it has that "Affiliation Chair" language in the mark-up and "if adopted" sections for Proposal CC.

That does not square with the minutes from 11-16-23. I have not checked the video from the discussion of Proposal CC during that meeting, but that video is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp9SqP_A2v0

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9Wn8v3F_qRarVody6%3DCehCQKeFRH9di23GtWF6HgAxyrtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Thank you, I will fix that in the draft I have for our final report.

___________________________________________________

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/CAOKuKGkqzk9POKZpj4fwDprih-Mzyfx5FWk4KMsr-3sbAQAUXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chuck Moulton]

Colleagues,

This is my revised list after seeing what was cut by the committee and a
fruitful post-meeting discussion in the Zoom call. I am less optimistic
that we will get to 18 proposals in convention. I think 12-15 is more
realistic.

Easy wins:
1. H - Standardize Committee Rules
2. J - Rising Seconds
3. MK-ULTRA - Change Timing of Platform & Credential Committee Appointments

Must consider:
4. NN - Removal from Office
5. RR - Re-Structure LNC (minority report for a proviso)
6. EE - Resolve Affiliate Disputes (minority report with different
approach, not cut anymore -- moving up is a compromise by me)
7. S - Refine Dues Definition (better to do before B)
8. B - Raise Membership Dues (minority report for gradual rise)

Hope consider:
9. P1 - Add Electronic Balloting (better to do before R)
10. R - Add RCV Voting for Officers
11. SS - Cumulative Voting (if RR doesn't pass)
12. QQ - Candidate Nominations
13. F - Clarify Procedure on Dropping Candidates

If we have time:
14. O - Add Notice Requirements (not high priority for me, but not cut)
15. L - Change Delegate Allocation Formula (not high priority for me,
but not cut)
16. MM - Clarify Quorum Issues

Cut from remaining:
CUT. C - Clarify Membership Definition (yellow)
CUT. P - Balloting Rules Rewrite (red)
CUT. E - Change Platform Deletion Threshold (red)


Previous yellows:
CUT. NAA - Limit Committee Alternates & Alternate Allocations
CUT. U - Clean Up Affiliation Language & Responsibilities
CUT. KK - Resignations
CUT. yellow PP - National Delegate Qualifications
CUT. TT - Delegate Counts (still prefer red)

Order for cuts (yellows, easy wins first):
i. NAA - Limit Committee Alternates & Alternate Allocations
ii. C - Clarify Membership Definition
iii. KK - Resignations
iv. PP - National Delegate Qualifications
v. U - Clean Up Affiliation Language & Responsibilities
vi. TT - Delegate Counts


In liberty,
Dr. Chuck Moulton

[Rob Latham]

To share my sense of ordering here, would swap 6-8 with 9-11 (and am anticipating 11-SS will not be necessary if 5-RR passes).

So EE would become the eighth agenda item with that change.

As I mentioned during yesterday's meeting, moving the group of proposals including B into that later position should motivate many delegates to remain in the convention hall through that portion of the BandRComm report.

Would also reverse the consideration order of the yellows, elevating utility over ease of passage.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

--
Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/4fd63b97-2db0-08f3-80a5-9f2af69d6d46%40moulton.org.

[Chuck Moulton]

Keep in mind that yellow proposals will not be in the report. I figure the simpler the better so delegates don't object as much to not seeing them in advance. I also tend to think we can potentially get through more of them if we go easy first: I'd prefer 2 easy passing to 1 harder passing in the yellow group. That's the way I look at it at least. YMMV.

In liberty,
Dr. Chuck Moulton

Sent from my iPhone

[Rob Latham]

Will it be a problem for proposals that are yellow or "on the bubble" not to be on the BandRComm report from a notice perspective?

Am leaning in favor of being over-inclusive rather than under-inclusive in the report if we're just talking about 24-ish proposals total. Break those into four separate surveys of six proposals each.

With the easy-easy-less easy form, here would be my preferred order for proposals "on the bubble":

i. NAA -  Limit Committee Alternates & Alternate Allocations (easy)
ii. C - Clarify Membership Definition (easy)
iii. TT - Delegate Counts (less easy but higher utility)
iv. KK - Resignations (easy)
v. PP - National Delegate Qualifications (easy)
vi. U - Clean Up Affiliation Language & Responsibilities (less easy but higher utility)

In liberty,

Rob Latham

--
Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/64F643D4-F173-42D9-B11B-0AA35D800A27%40moulton.org.

[Secretary LNC]

Zero notice issues.

___________________________________________________

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/CAOKuKG%3DHc%3D0jxVohHYut-o9szYqzcmFL090kLAhy-A%2B82X3a6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

We are not getting 4 surveys from national.  I'm just being real. N

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

Yellow proposals will be at top of "recommended by committee but not presented by committee report" passed on to LNC and next committee and to any member who wants it.

Those yellow ones the committee will order and give me discretion to raise if we find ourselves with time.

[Rob Latham]

Thank you, for the information on notice, how "yellow" proposals are intended to be handled (depending on what the "almost final" report looks like would like the committee to be open to an addendum containing the "on the bubble" proposals -- although notice may not be required for the convention to consider "on the bubble" proposals, notice may still be good form), and the likely number of proposal surveys.

Thought I heard the word "multiple" in reference to surveys, which by definition means at least two. So, two or three surveys?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WmfQcrdUhKD7asXjRcOu%3D5vYtO_zbyJY5386DmVoaOmww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I do not want yellow proposals in report.  There are a LOT of strategic reasons for that but committee will decide.

I'm hoping for three surveys.

Perhaps we can get more.

I'd like to pair with things passed by platform for max effect but that will be up to that committee.

___________________________________________________

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/CAOKuKG%3Dxa2kh7EvWmVa%3Da-ZTYbWZw%3DpvtZSXDHndC-96EcMs9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Rowlette]

I know you don't like email debate, but I'm interested in what the strategic reasons are.  One I can think of is trying to avoid motions to suspend the rules to consider items out of order, but I doubt proposals that don't have passionate constancies are likely to have that happen.

If there's a more than 1% chance that a proposal is going to be heard my default would be to give notice about it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DQ5ccUpA1XzgiH1XQ%2BCH34EOODG%2BT98Lqvtz%3DhCV6ogw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I think we discussed this last meeting.  We will get to debate on final ordering but we already passed a lot of stuff not being in report.  Unless someone is moving to reconsider that ship has sailed.

If people are against these I put up for email debate, then vote no.

I'd remind everyone that everyone made compromises- if we are now moving away from that - well we wasted a meeting and people will go back to former positions x

I urge everyone to heed the words stated by Dr. Moulton at the meeting.

I'm not redebating it here.  The committee already said yellow and red not in report.  

Until there is a valid motion to reconsider, I'm not personally entertaining the issue.  Others can talk about what they wish.

___________________________________________________

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%2B6WXgWVnJ_0GEroC25Ofi-QW2O%3D60E8Yg0DOZtT0%3DRPFvZtwg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

My stating "I do not want" was my intention in the event of a reconsideration.  It is the Chair's position that the committee already decided yellow and red are not in report.  Yellow however will be at chairs discretion if we have time in an order to be decided by committee.

Anyone is free to reconsider that decision if they qualify.

I would highly suggest you don't.  A lot of amity and trust was built up last meeting and this backward glancing unravels it.  No one is happy with every decision.  That's why it's compromise.  People will be less willing to do so if they feel a decision once made is going to be continued to be litigated by the "losing side."  I lost several votes.  I'm not relitigating them.

It is up to the committee as always, but we may need to go back to meeting weekly. 

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250