Platform Committee Process and Timeline Proposal

[Stephanie Berlin]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been listening closely to the concerns shared about managing our time - both the time we need as a committee to do solid work, and the limited time we’ll have once we get to convention. I completely hear you. I also know we all want to focus on the proposals the convention body genuinely wants us to bring forward.

With that in mind, I’d like to suggest a simple plan that keeps us organized, respects everyone’s bandwidth, and still makes room for transparency and member input. Here’s what that could look like:

Proposed Process & Timeline

Now → March 23

Proposal submissions
Each person may submit up to one major platform proposal draft to the committee. This keeps the workload focused and manageable.

March 23 & March 30

Open platform meetings (public invited)
These two meetings are open to anyone who wants to present ideas or share information. This keeps the process transparent and helps us understand what matters to the broader membership.

March 23–30

Electronic voting window
We’ll use OpaVote or a similar tool to rank all submitted proposals and identify the top five to seven. This gives us a fair, structured way to prioritize without hours of debate.

April 6 → May 11

Discussion & drafting phase
These weeks are dedicated to reviewing the prioritized proposals, discussing them, making edits, and shaping each one into a clear, convention‑ready document.

May 18 & Onsite at Convention

Finalization
We’ll use May 18 (and any last available time onsite) to tighten up language, finalize formatting, and make sure everything is polished before it goes to the convention body.

 

I recognize that we have a shortened timeline due to starting significantly later in the year that is typical so it is my hope that this plan accomplishes the below:

• It keeps the workload reasonable.
• It ensures the broader membership’s voice is heard.
• It gives us a fair and transparent way to prioritize.
• It allows real time to refine proposals—not last‑minute scrambling.
• It positions us to bring a strong, organized slate to convention.

Please feel free to let me know what you all think.  Thanks everyone for the work you’re doing

In liberty,

Stephanie

[Mike Seebeck]

No. Rigid plans have a very bad habit of going straight down the tubes when reality hits. 

Limiting member proposals is unfair to members of the committee.

We can go to twice a week if we have to. It's been done before.

The biggest hump is the past report and once that's ground out, it gets easier.

The majority of the older proposals fix gaps in planks and are not long. We should be able to get through them, and we've already made some progress. The platform overall has a lot of solid, no-need-to-change areas, except for those gaps. The controversy areas: debt (addressed), abortion, sex work, bigotry plank, and free trade/migration. 

If there's wording for other proposals,  we should get them drafted. Mine are ready.

Let's just get through this organically.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LNC Platform Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lnc-platform-comm...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAJ%3Dc0H1KAae8yyKxA%2BZCxT4LbFON%2BPFLPOYhyRa%3DB4AD1TnKTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephanie Berlin]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your perspective. I don’t want a rigid process either, and I’m all for staying flexible as we go. The one concern that keeps coming up from several members is that we may not have enough time to meaningfully discuss the major planks that usually take longer.  This also allows for more people to bring forth their ideas with an eye toward collaboration. 

Since that’s a repeated worry, can you help us think through how you would structure things so we can be sure those topics actually get the time they need? I’m open to different approaches.  I just want to make sure we have a realistic path that avoids a crunch at the end.

I’m still leaning toward keeping proposal submissions limited to one major draft per person to keep us from getting overwhelmed early on, but if you have an alternative that ensures we stay on schedule and still give those complex sections the attention they demand, I’m all ears.

Happy to find a middle ground here. Thanks again for weighing in.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4R79QCYx7%3DqjothGsrrwgMN%2BNSOU-FrO-1etZfRByQ3Xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Simply put:

1. Get through the older stuff first. In the background, people can be drafting their own proposals. Advance wordsmithing is always a good idea.

2. Once that's done, new proposals. I'm not a fan of limiting proposals, but it tends to average out between those that have a lot and those that have none. I have 2 to bring up, maybe 3. 

3. For each proposal that goes into the report, the originator drafts the problem/solution/benefit statements.

4. We order the report. This may also require re-examining multiple proposals on the same plank if they arise to tweak/harmonize.

5. We finalize it. The draft report is already frameworked out as it's been pretty standardized already, with just filling things in as we go and ordering once it is finalized.

As for timeframes, it's simply a grind through it with the understanding of a May 11/18 drop dead date for everything. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAJ%3Dc0H3oK8iram_8Mye-nLnOZdjaMAh%3DNrwqKKevwrm%2BVwGhrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephanie Berlin]

I appreciate your experience and the steps you outlined. We’re aligned on the goal: a clear, high‑quality platform the convention can trust.

Where we’re getting stuck isn’t the workflow but the time. Several members are worried we won’t realistically get meaningful discussion on the big-ticket planks unless we protect time for them now.

Could you help solve that constraint? Specifically:

1. What’s your plan to ensure the complex planks each get a dedicated discussion window before May 18—without adding more than 2 total meetings?
2. How do we prevent last‑minute overload if “older items first” runs longer than expected?
3. What’s a clear, minimal structure (dates/checkpoints) you can support that makes progress trackable and avoids a crunch at the end?

I want to add one more piece of context here. I’ve served as Secretary for LPTexas and on numerous platform committees, so I’ve seen firsthand how often the loudest voices (usually unintentionally) end up overrunning people who have thoughtful, well‑developed ideas but aren’t as forceful in the room. I really want to make sure this committee creates a space where all voices can be heard and have the time they deserve, not just the ones that speak first or speak loudest. That’s the heart of why I’m pushing for at least a light structure around our calendar—just enough to ensure that the complex planks and quieter contributors don’t get squeezed out as we get closer to convention.

Thanks,

Stephanie

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4Tt1LCsgHe%3DrpFbd3%3Dq5dBGYFjWOAb1kgmbVsT2sDJ0zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt C]

I think it's important to note that we are not required to go through the last committee's report. We can do it if we want to, but it's not something that we must do.  

This is my 6th or 7th consecutive term on this committee. And the most significant thing that I've learned from my work on the committee, as well as talking to members about the platform, is that the committee tends to do too much work.  Outside of a couple of major issues (like abortion), the feeling seems to be that the platform is in pretty good shape. It doesn't need a bunch of work.  And on those issues like abortion, while there certainly are significant numbers of people that would like to make some changes, the reality is that there is no chance of anything big making it through convention and into the platform.  Remember that it's not a majority that's needed, but 2/3 of the delegates. 

Then we have time constraints at convention. There's absolutely no way in hell that we're going to get through 20 proposals at convention. So, the committee pushing through a report with a bunch of proposals is just a waste of effort.  We do a bunch of work on proposals that can't possibly be heard. Then we send surveys around to delegates and they spend time reading and thinking and writing about proposals that will never come to the floor.  

In my opinion, we should put forward a report with a single digit number of proposals. I don't think that will happen, but I think that would be the best use of the committee's time, and most respectful to our fellow party members.  Beyond that, the number should be as small as possible. So 12 is better than 15. 15 is better than 18.  

We don't need more time to work. We need to spend our time wisely.  

To circle back to the 2024 report.... I think a lot of those proposals are good ones.  As a member of the committee that produced them, I like the idea of making use of the work that we did.  However, like I said, we have absolutely no obligation to deal with those proposals. We can start fresh on the same topics. We could ignore those topics all together. Or whatever we want.  If there are people in this committee that think they have important matters to bring up, they should not feel forced to wait another few weeks to do so.  

- Matt Cholko

---

From: lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com <lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mike Seebeck <mike.s...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:57:19 AM
To: lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com <lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Platform Committee Process and Timeline Proposal

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4Tt1LCsgHe%3DrpFbd3%3Dq5dBGYFjWOAb1kgmbVsT2sDJ0zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

I like the idea of limiting ourselves to 5 to 7 proposals. It was my goal last cycle to limit the number of proposals. I have that same goal this year. The reason is we try to stuff too much into the time allotted then things get passed in a speed round rather than having time for honest debate. Plus, I have been an advocate for leaving time at the end for members to propose from the floor things that we either did not come up with ourselves or refused to hear. I think limiting ourselves to the top proposals shows respect to the delegates.

I also like the idea of either scheduling a date and time for public comment  or publishing an agenda ahead of time and allowing time at the beginning of each meeting for comments from the public that are germane to the items being discussed that day. For instance, people in favor of keeping the sex worker plank, I'm one of them btw, should be able to voice their opinion on the day we consider it.

On Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 02:36:44 PM EDT, Brennan Barrington <quinnmall...@proton.me> wrote:

Another thought regarding my previous message: we could simply open an invitation to party membership to contact us with proposals between meetings. If one of us likes such a proposal, xe can just bring it up at a meeting. If none of us are willing to go to bat for it, it veey probably wouldn't have passed anyway.

--Brennan Barrington

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

-------- Original Message --------

[Brittany Kosin]

Would the medical freedom proposal count as mine?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LNC Platform Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lnc-platform-comm...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/1829027243.132835.1773264442726%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

At the moment we have at least 2:30 slotted for Platform and possibly more. Time is not necessarily an issue.

And limiting proposals, aka kicking the can down the road, is a nonstarter with me.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CABXoZL1GvKFeNFR-iyqmMnkCpsLx_FsRfoGQ-KNKu7Q%3Dg3F8Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

[rpbrooksbank]

You are assuming nothing else runs long like officer elections. I’m sorry, but if history is any indicator we won’t have even the 2:30 we always end up in speed rounds trying to blast through the proposals. Plus, if we propose an abortion plank we’ve guaranteed a debate that will fill up the entire time. Let’s be respectful of the delegates and limit ourselves. Editing is just an important a job of the committee as proposing.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2026, at 9:40 PM, Mike Seebeck <mike.s...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4QNB4s1%2BLsVK31eH4HkkVUbAukDW%3DkqgjE2VJM89DTtyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

No, I'm going off what the convention committee is working, plus my own gathered information on the races based on being Head Teller and organizing ballots. Only done this 4 straight conventions, so I sorta have a feel for it. I'm not preparing 30k ballots for fun.

Limiting proposals is simply kicking the can down the road. It doesn't actually help the platform. And it certainly doesn't inform delegates of the work that has been done and it still needed.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/F95ED0EF-C6AB-4812-A5F8-E55E7E76D22F%40aol.com.

[rpbrooksbank]

We didn’t get to hear any platform proposals in D.C. or Orlando, in  NOLA and Reno it was rushed through. If the last four are any indication we will have limited time. I don’t think it’s “kicking the can” to limit ourselves. Every committee has their own ideas as to what should be proposed.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2026, at 9:57 AM, Mike Seebeck <mike.s...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4SCLWrCGbAmJvjiXNyyYmsHxhB2GaAfdMbckdcGmY%2BtSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[rpbrooksbank]

And why are we making ballots? We don’t even know who is running yet.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2026, at 10:17 AM, rpbrooksbank <rpbroo...@aol.com> wrote:

We didn’t get to hear any platform proposals in D.C. or Orlando, in  NOLA and Reno it was rushed through. If the last four are any indication we will have limited time. I don’t think it’s “kicking the can” to limit ourselves. Every committee has their own ideas as to what should be proposed.

[Mike Seebeck]

The ballots do not list candidates. That would be absurd and there is a very specific process for nomination.

They only list race, round, and state.

It's called voting integrity.

I run clean elections. Period. That includes no false ballots, and complete chain of custody.

This system has been in play for the past 4 conventions and has its roots going back to at least 2008.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/FA4E5BD2-DC57-4441-91E5-304E4364FFB0%40aol.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

That's because of a combination of convention shenanigans by certain people, bad planning by others, and unprecedented elections.

Those of us actually working convention prep are diligently planning to address those issues, including scheduling.

The only X factor is the usual first day credentials fights (and there will be because of what happened in NH over the weekend), and that's factored in as well.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/C9D788E6-EC5C-4D4B-B94F-E92A86780EB0%40aol.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

There is no way to control the shenanigans or how many people get nominated. Stalling and making things go slower is a tactic that has always been in use. I hope I'm wrong, but history proves me right. Still, we should limit ourselves out of respect for the delegates. They deserve time at the end to make proposals. It's in the rules for a reason.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4RZRxipisgUd%2B1JHJEOGB_xmgaUS%3D_uPHAVhOkCu6EL3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

And exactly how many times has that happened in the past 18 years?

Exactly once, the bigotry is repugnant issue in Reno.

It doesn't happen not because of this committee but because of delegates wasting time on the floor and engaging in their antics.

It's not up to this committee to accommodate their behaviors. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/1674731560.1637454.1773673438120%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

Shenanigans happen EVERY. SINGLE. CONVENTION.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4SbWAKZ1an0F2k3_gwK2D9ZM4xDVrf6%2B9z5fD%3DVmW6EhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Keith Thompson]

Nerfing the platform because of potential shenanigans only ensures the platform is watered down.

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

---

From: 'Russell Brooksbank' via LNC Platform Committee <lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:18 AM

To: lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com <lnc-platfor...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Platform Committee Process and Timeline Proposal

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/1367988177.1550318.1773674322725%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

Nobody is saying to not have platform proposals. All I'm saying is that in the interest of getting them all heard and fairly debated we should limit our proposals. We limited ourselves last time. We should do the same with this committee. It does us no good to go into Grand Rapids with 50 proposals. We should pars the list down to let's say 10 proposals that we genuinely think will pass. The supposed 2:30 minutes should be enough time to get through them and have time left for people to propose from the floor. What would be the crime in getting done BEFORE the 2:30 allotted time?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/DM6PR13MB260448F801813C1102AF4BF0FB40A%40DM6PR13MB2604.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Nobody is saying 50 proposals. 

We have a backlog to address. We have a few more beyond that.

The Convention committee has specifically set aside more time this Convention for both Bylaws and Platform to get them caught up.  Bylaws has already gone through the work to address the backlog. Platform should do the same. NOBODY wants to have more backlog in El Paso.

We should not artificially limit getting through that in the name of a hypothetical. If delegates want to submit a proposal, they can send it up to this committee now beforehand. That's always been the case.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/1916802129.1644018.1773674847827%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

And, as I have already said, it is in the rules for a reason. What happens if the proposal doesn't get heard in committee? I know of at least one instance of that happening. I sent a proposal to the committee a couple cycles ago and they refused to take it up. If we would have had time at the convention then I would have been able to propose to the delegates and let them decide. I ask again. What's the crime in ending with enough time for this to happen? What are you afraid of?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4SKOLQ82P3MvGEgo1V%3D%2B9%2Bpm5uz6_5jJxTHZg3%2Bq6TLsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

I'm not afraid of anything, and that's an offensive assumption.

It's in the rules because it was put there decades ago.

Frankly, advocating for this committee to limit its work is insulting to this committee and past committees.  We were selected to do this work, not to not do it. The delegates should have the ultimate say on it. If they want to rubberstamp our work, which IMO they should not do, they can do so. If they want to kill the entire report in favor of floor proposals, which IMO is also a bad idea, they can do so. But that's up to them, not this committee, and it's on us to develop and present reasoned proposals for them to decide. It is not on us to accommodate whatever hypothetical actions in lieu of our report they may decide to do–that's an exercise in futility and a waste of time.

We build our report and present it. How the delegates address that is on them. Not us. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/626154346.1670837.1773678705649%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Russell Brooksbank]

Like I said, editing is just as much the job of this committee as proposing is. There is no crime in finishing early with time to spare. I've said my peace on this issue.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/CAGasu4QO2JLbPHAH9oPeCaNT_0engy%3DzCFZ%2Bc%2BHq_qwbyPny6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brennan Barrington]

Yes, there is, if there's anything that should have been considered and hasn't been at that point. Convention time is a very limited resource and should not be wasted.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lnc-platform-committee/1950997211.1710858.1773680832630%40mail.yahoo.com.