Re: Bylaws proposals

[Starchild]

Copying this again to the Google Groups list, which I saw in the header of another recent message. Having both that and the <byl...@ca.lp.org> address is confusing. I think we should have one list for each LPC committee, for everyone to use.

Who has the info on who is subscribed to these different lists? Where can folks go to see that info to know who is on what list(s), including ourselves?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Dec 4, 2025, at 4:52 PM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Hi all,

Apologies for being behind on my emails! There’s been a huge flurry of them from this committee in the past week or so, and I’m still catching up! Just got a call from Joe on Tuesday evening telling me that the deadline to submit our initial report is the end of this week!

 So I wanted to get at least these three proposals posted here – including a proposed revision to the Bylaws Committee timetable so that this artificial rush to get a report out long before our convention won’t be a problem in the future – right away. I will continue reading everyone else’s emails and proposals and weigh in on those as soon as I can.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

2025 Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

2025 LPC Bylaws Committee Proposals

1) Proposed rewording of Bylaw 2: Mission Statement

Bylaw 2: Mission Statement

Advancing individual liberty through peaceful, political action by any peaceful, ethical means. 

2) Proposed rewording of Bylaw 3: Purpose

Bylaw 3: Purpose (3/4 required to amend)

The Party exists to implement libertarian policy through political activities designed to win political office and implement libertarian policy, to uphold, promote, and disseminate the philosophy and principles of libertarianism as described in the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party, in order to build a society based on consent, not coercion. To that end, it shall engage in political activity we seek to elect persons who hold these ideas to public office, and to engage in political, informational, and other activities designed to secure freedom for everyone in California, and elsewhere so far as our influence may extend. Also, it shall proclaim and implement the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party by engaging in political and informational activities in California.

The Party shall do so by These activities may include, but not be limited to:

A. Developing an on-going political strategy to identify, expose, combat, and defeat the opponents of liberty in the political arena;

BA. Engaging in political activity in organizing and raising awareness among all segments of the population;

B. Identifying influential supporters and opponents of freedom in California, in order to aid those working to advance policies consistent with libertarianism, and counteract the influence of individuals promoting authoritarian ideas and policies; 

C. Registering eligible Californians to vote as Libertarians, and Iidentifying, persuading, and recruiting influential like-minded individuals and opinion leaders to become members of the Party;

D. Identifying and developing Working in coalitions with other organizations in order to

realize the ideas of liberty as proclaimed in the Statement of Principles;

ED. Employing media experts, political tacticians, field workers and others, Hiring employees and/or paying contractors as needed; when volunteers are insufficient to carry out projects;

F. Preparing a statewide political environment to enhance the election of Party candidates pledged to the Statement of Principles for the singular purpose of abolishing statist law, and restoring civil and economic liberty and property rights as proclaimed in the Principles and defined in the Platform;

GE. Nominating, endorsing and promoting registered Libertarians who pledge to proclaim and implement the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party of California support abolishing statist laws, and restoring civil liberties and economic freedom including property rights, as candidates for public office in California; and

HF. Promoting, cChartering, and coordinating, and promoting County Central Committees throughout the state.;

IG. Promoting Supporting initiatives, and referenda, and legislative or regulatory changes conducive to securing liberty;realize the ideas of liberty as proclaimed in the Statement of Principles.

H. Opposing initiatives, referenda, and legislative or regulatory changes at odds with a libertarian, consent-based society; and 

I. Developing and implementing strategies to achieve these and other objectives consistent with the Statement of Principles.

3) Proposed rewording of Bylaw 17: Committees

Bylaw 17: Committees

Section 1

The Executive Committee shall have the power to create and appoint committees, 

but may delegate the authority to make such appointments as it deems

appropriate. No standing committee created by the Executive Committee can be

appointed until 7 days after the committee’s creation if it is created without

notice. All special committees must have a targeted end date for their final report.

Section 2: Bylaws Committee

Not later than sixty days following the close of each convention, the Executive

Committee shall appoint a Bylaws Committee of five State Central Committee

members to recommend changes in these Bylaws and Convention Rules. The

Bylaws Committee shall adopt its initial report not less than seventy days prior to

the convention and the Secretary shall cause it to be published on the Party's

website not less than sixty days prior to the convention. The Bylaws Committee

shall adopt its final report, which may include corrections or improvements to

proposals in the initial report but shall not introduce new proposals, not less than

twenty days prior to the convention and the Secretary shall cause it to be

published on the Party's website not less than fifteen days prior to the convention.

After each Party convention, a new Bylaws Committee shall be constituted, with the power to create a report to be considered at the following convention of proposed additions, deletions, and/or changes to the Party’s Bylaws. Each active county shall be entitled to appoint a Party member in good standing of its choosing to the Bylaws Committee, by communicating the individual’s name, phone number and email address to the Secretary, who shall maintain a public list of committee members on the state Party website. Such appointments may be made at any time between conventions. At any time following 30 days after each convention, persons appointed to the Bylaws Committee may elect a committee chair or other positions from among their number, and begin to vote on proposals. All Party members shall be entitled to fully participate in committee discussion and debate, but only committee members shall be entitled to make motions or vote. Eligible counties who have not yet made appointments to the Bylaws Committee may continue to do so at any time prior to the start of the next convention. Proposals from the committee shall be added to a report published on the committee page of the Party website as soon as possible after they are voted out of committee.This report shall be subject to change up to the final meeting of the Bylaws Committee, which shall be held in person at the state convention prior to the discussion of its report in the business agenda, with Party members given the opportunity at that meeting to discuss and modify the committee’s proposals. Proposals adopted by the Bylaws Committee and published on the Party website may be modified or rescinded at any time up to the end of the final committee meeting at convention.

Section 3: Platform Committee

After each Party convention, a new Platform Committee shall be constituted, with the power to create a report to be considered at the following convention of proposed additions, deletions, and/or changes to the Party’s Platform. Each active county shall be entitled to appoint a Party member in good standing of its choosing to the Platform Committee, by communicating the individual’s name, phone number and email address to the Secretary, who shall maintain a public list of committee members on the state Party website. Such appointments may be made at any time betweenconventions. At any time following 30 days after each convention, persons appointed to the Platform Committee may elect a committee chair or other positions from among their number, and begin to vote on proposals. All Party members shall be entitled to fully participate in committee discussion and debate, but only committee members shall be entitled to make motions or vote. Eligible counties who have not yet made appointments to the Platform Committee may continue to do so at any time prior to the start of the next convention. Proposals from the committee shall be added to a report published on the committee page of the Party website as soon as possible after they are voted out of committee.This report shall be subject to change up to the final meeting of the Bylaws Committee, which shall be held in person at the state convention prior to the discussion of its report in the business agenda, with Party members given the opportunity at that meeting to discuss and modify the committee’s proposals. Proposals adopted by the Platform Committee and published on the Party website may be modified or rescinded at any time up to the end of the final committee meeting at convention.

[Mimi Robson]

Starchild, the Bylaws Discussion group is open to anyone.  https://groups.google.com/g/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss

As far as your proposal for the bylaws committee, unless you create additional amendments, this would be in violation of the bylaws, as the bylaws state there must be advance notice for all amendments.  I personally wouldn't support an amendment like this unless the vote threshold was increased for amendments.

And as far as the platform committee, being we currently don't have a state platform, I would suggest looking at Joe's amendment to create a state specific platform again and see if your proposed amendment is already taken into consideration there.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/2FCABD1D-4558-489E-9702-34A19E45C2B1%40earthlink.net.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 16:52, Starchild wrote:

Hi all,

 

Apologies for being behind on my emails! There's been a huge flurry of them from this committee in the past week or so, and I'm still catching up!

 

 

Glad to see you catching up!

 

 

Just got a call from Joe on Tuesday evening telling me that the deadline to submit our initial report is the end of this week!

 

Yes, I did speak with you then (now two days ago) but I called you just as a reminder; that the deadline was coming up soon should not have been new information, to anybody involved in this process. The 70-day deadline is specified in the bylaws. (And we've been operating with such a deadline since 2008!)

 

 So I wanted to get at least these three proposals posted here – including a proposed revision to the Bylaws Committee timetable so that this artificial rush to get a report out long before our convention won't be a problem in the future – right away. I will continue reading everyone else's emails and proposals and weigh in on those as soon as I can.

 

In my view, this is pretty late in the game to be offering new proposals.  When I spoke with you two days ago I believe I was pretty clear that I expected that by today we would be voting -- and I asked you to be sure to read whatever e-mail was coming through on Wednesday (i.e., yesterday), even if you had not been keeping up on the past discussion, to be in a position to participate in that.

 

If you have not yet gotten to the message where I first shared this URL, please take a look there now:

 

http://dehnbase.org/lpc/temp/bylaws-draft.html

 

I think you will probably like at least some of them -- at least better than the status quo even if they aren't what you would have written yourself.

 

Please let me know which of the proposals listed there you agree should be included in our report, which you oppose including in our report, and any on which you would prefer to abstain.

 

As for your new proposals, in theory we could still get them in, but it won't make sense to even try unless there are other members of the committee who would be inclined to include them,. If anybody else wants to see any of those (or any variation on them) included, please speak up now.

 

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 18:04, Starchild wrote:

Copying this again to the Google Groups list, which I saw in the header of another recent message. Having both that and the <byl...@ca.lp.org> address is confusing. I think we should have one list for each LPC committee, for everyone to use.

 

 

The "public" list, LPCalifornia-...@googlegroups.com, is the one that all of us should be using for actual "discussion". That's what it was set up for.  It is supposed to be reaching everybody on the committee plus other people who are interested in what we are discussing.  You can CC the other address if you like, but it should not be necessary. (Just as you can CC individual members, but it should not be necessary.)

 

 

Who has the info on who is subscribed to these different lists? Where can folks go to see that info to know who is on what list(s), including ourselves?

 

 

There are currently only three subscribers to LPCalifornia-...@googlegroups.com other than the four committee members: June Genis, Wes Martin, and Sandra Kallander.

 

If you want to know to what other lists (in the Google Groups system) you are subscribed yourself, you can get that information by logging into groups.google.com and clicking on "My groups".

 

[Starchild]

Joe,

Maybe this 70-day deadline for our initial report wouldn’t come as a surprise in an ideal world where everyone was completely on top of everything, but realistically it seems to. Nothing much happened in this committee until a couple weeks ago when there was suddenly a large number of posts, during which time I’ve unfortunately been alternately relatively busy, and sick with some kind of bug that didn’t make me feel like doing much.

  I’d like to get rid of that whole artificial deadline (as per my proposal) and let the committee work up until convention so that members attending the Bylaws Committee’s meeting in person there can still have input. People are generally much more aware of when our conventions are coming up, having made travel arrangements and seen them advertised and such, than they are of some obscure advance notice rule buried in the bylaws.

Anyway, besides the three proposals I sent, the other one I haven’t written up yet – but have previously discussed repeatedly, and which is pretty straightforward – is requiring committees to let all LPC members participate in discussion on their email lists. Do you have any ideas the best place in the Bylaws to put it?

My other two ideas – ending the practice of someone being able to both engage in debate and then immediately call the question, and requiring two in-person ExCom meetings at each convention – could each be rolled into existing proposals I think, if people are amenable.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

[Starchild]

Thanks, Joe. I know I can log into Google – not that I want to; I’d prefer we use some other less hegemonic company – to see what Googlegroups I’m in, but it doesn’t tell you who else is in those groups, does it? Aren’t you only able to see that June, Wes, and Sandra are subscribed because you’re an admin or something? Knowing who besides committee members is paying attention is valuable information that should be equally accessible to all.

But the fact that there are only three subscribers to the Bylaws Committee Googlegroups list illustrates that opening email list discussion to any interested members shouldn’t create some huge extra burden. Haven’t Bylaws Committees themselves often had seven or more members? 

I don’t think there's any insurmountable technical hurdle to enabling our members who are interested to participate in our committee discussions, do you?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

[Starchild]

Mimi,

I’m saying we should make each committee list (not just the Bylaws Committee list) open to any LPC member to post as well as to read. Do you really not understand?

Which other bylaws do you think would need to be changed so as not to be in conflict with allowing the Bylaws Committee to meet and adopt recommendations up until its final meeting at convention?

Besides their schedules, the main point of my proposal for the Bylaws and Platform Committees (the language is the same for each) is to give the county parties representation on these committees, instead of appointments just being controlled by the state Executive Committee. Does Joe’s proposal to create a state-specific Platform include these things? 

Alternately to county representation, I would be amenable to having convention delegates elect the members of these important committees.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrR_6ysg8b7_4bnag4B0Dk5HTrz2t_z6bnxYd0bqhi4FrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-05 01:43, Starchild wrote:

Joe,

 

Maybe this 70-day deadline for our initial report wouldn't come as a surprise in an ideal world where everyone was completely on top of everything, but realistically it seems to. Nothing much happened in this committee until a couple weeks ago when there was suddenly a large number of posts, during which time I've unfortunately been alternately relatively busy, and sick with some kind of bug that didn't make me feel like doing much.

 

  I'd like to get rid of that whole artificial deadline (as per my proposal) and let the committee work up until convention so that members attending the Bylaws Committee's meeting in person there can still have input. People are generally much more aware of when our conventions are coming up, having made travel arrangements and seen them advertised and such, than they are of some obscure advance notice rule buried in the bylaws.

 

 

I don't personally view it as an "artificial deadline".  I view it as a way to push people to get the job done in time for the delegates to be prepared to consider the proposed changes. And I suspect that many other delegates view it the same way. Your proposal actually would differ from current practice in two significant ways -- it would allow proposals to be added right up until the day before the convention and it would keep the membership of the committee open until that time. Basically nothing would be decided until just before the convention was about to start, and there would be nothing to ensure that committee members were selected on the basis of their ability to do the work required or that they communicate with each other until that point. I can sort of understand the attraction of this in terms of "openness", but if we are going to be that open about it why bother with calling it a committee at all?  Why not just have anybody who has an idea they consider important enough to write it up and hash it out on the convention floor?

 

To me, the point of a committee like this is to sort, select, and refine ideas -- and that takes time.  It's human nature (or at least very common) for people to not start working on something until a deadline approaches.  Setting a committee deadline a significant amount of time in advance of the convention is a way to get people to start thinking about that subject in advance of the convention, which in term then gives the rest of the delegates time to think about the recommendations if they are so inclined.

 

Anyway, besides the three proposals I sent, the other one I haven't written up yet – but have previously discussed repeatedly, and which is pretty straightforward – is requiring committees to let all LPC members participate in discussion on their email lists. Do you have any ideas the best place in the Bylaws to put it?

 

If it were to be in the bylaws perhaps an appropriate place would be Bylaw 17, Section 1.  But I don't agree that this would be "straightforward".  For any such requirement to make sense you would first have to say something about committees having email lists at all.  Must all committees have one?  Maybe you think so, but some committees might prefer to do all their business via Discord, or Signal, or maybe even Zoom. Debatable whether there should be a specific requirement. Debatable whether it belongs in the bylaws. Debatable whether exceptions should be made for certain kinds of business, e.g., where confidentiality might be helpful. Somebody would have to write up language which could easily get complicated. I think this is something on which there is much more diversity of opinion than you are imagining.

 

 

 

My other two ideas – ending the practice of someone being able to both engage in debate and then immediately call the question, and requiring two in-person ExCom meetings at each convention – could each be rolled into existing proposals I think, if people are amenable.

 

I suppose the second one might be considered to qualify as an amendment to the proposal we are already offering to eliminate the current in-person requirement.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/091A8694-127C-4A60-94DE-5A020D9E9720%40earthlink.net.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-05 02:15, Starchild wrote:

Mimi,

I'm saying we should make each committee list (not just the Bylaws Committee list) open to any LPC member to post as well as to read. Do you really not understand?

 

Which other bylaws do you think would need to be changed so as not to be in conflict with allowing the Bylaws Committee to meet and adopt recommendations up until its final meeting at convention?

 

Besides their schedules, the main point of my proposal for the Bylaws and Platform Committees (the language is the same for each) is to give the county parties representation on these committees, instead of appointments just being controlled by the state Executive Committee. Does Joe's proposal to create a state-specific Platform include these things? 

 

 

No, it does not. It uses the current Bylaws Committee structure and procedures as a model for the Platform Committee.  I wrote it that way because I believe most members see that as as viable model. Even if I personally thought your approach would work better -- which I don't -- I care more about having some mechanism to adopt state platform planks.  I would not want to make my proposal to accomplish that harder to get passed by including something that I expect would raise more opposition than support.  If we get the state platform idea through, then we can debate the committee form and structure as a separate subject. (For both the Bylaws Committee and the Platform Committee -- I agree that the issues are basically the same.)

 

But why are you asking Mimi this question?  You can see for yourself how my proposal is worded -- just look at the page I have mentioned several times:

 

http://dehnbase.org/lpc/temp/bylaws-draft.html

 

Please, if you have not already done so, go there and review what the rest of us have been working on.

 

[Mike Van Roy]

I think it is too late in the process to add new proposals now.

But they're not all bad ideas. Maybe after the report is submitted we can talk about what suggestions we have for next year's committee.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

There were only one or two committees this past year that had more people interested in joining than there was space available for it. The problem is not that county-level people are restricted from joining. It's that they don't want to.

I do agree counties should be repeating the state messaging about joining the state committees but the goal behind that is for the state to choose the *best* people for the committees because the counties send them a large selection pool.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

Joe,

Thanks for your comments. My responses interspersed below...

On Dec 5, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:

On 2025-12-05 01:43, Starchild wrote:

Joe,

 

Maybe this 70-day deadline for our initial report wouldn't come as a surprise in an ideal world where everyone was completely on top of everything, but realistically it seems to. Nothing much happened in this committee until a couple weeks ago when there was suddenly a large number of posts, during which time I've unfortunately been alternately relatively busy, and sick with some kind of bug that didn't make me feel like doing much.

 

  I'd like to get rid of that whole artificial deadline (as per my proposal) and let the committee work up until convention so that members attending the Bylaws Committee's meeting in person there can still have input. People are generally much more aware of when our conventions are coming up, having made travel arrangements and seen them advertised and such, than they are of some obscure advance notice rule buried in the bylaws.

 

 

I don't personally view it as an "artificial deadline".  I view it as a way to push people to get the job done in time for the delegates to be prepared to consider the proposed changes. And I suspect that many other delegates view it the same way. Your proposal actually would differ from current practice in two significant ways -- it would allow proposals to be added right up until the day before the convention and it would keep the membership of the committee open until that time. Basically nothing would be decided until just before the convention was about to start, and there would be nothing to ensure that committee members were selected on the basis of their ability to do the work required or that they communicate with each other until that point. I can sort of understand the attraction of this in terms of "openness", but if we are going to be that open about it why bother with calling it a committee at all?  Why not just have anybody who has an idea they consider important enough to write it up and hash it out on the convention floor?

Because having the Bylaws Committee would give people a place, and a structure, to start working on bylaws proposals well before the convention, for anyone who prefers to get an early start. While nothing would be finally decided until the end of the committee’s meeting at the start of the convention, realistically a lot of what had been put into the committee's report up to that time would likely be passed out of committee.

 

To me, the point of a committee like this is to sort, select, and refine ideas -- and that takes time. 

Agreed. But there’s never anything (except human nature) preventing anyone from getting to work as soon as they’re motivated to do so. Also, under my proposal, the sooner you start and get something passed out of committee, the longer it would be up on the website, with more time for people to see it. That would be an incentive.

It's human nature (or at least very common) for people to not start working on something until a deadline approaches. 

No more, I think, than it is human nature, or at least very common, to forget about obscure deadlines buried in the bylaws when no one is talking about them!

Setting a committee deadline a significant amount of time in advance of the convention is a way to get people to start thinking about that subject in advance of the convention, which in term then gives the rest of the delegates time to think about the recommendations if they are so inclined.

 

Anyway, besides the three proposals I sent, the other one I haven't written up yet – but have previously discussed repeatedly, and which is pretty straightforward – is requiring committees to let all LPC members participate in discussion on their email lists. Do you have any ideas the best place in the Bylaws to put it?

 

If it were to be in the bylaws perhaps an appropriate place would be Bylaw 17, Section 1.  But I don't agree that this would be "straightforward".  For any such requirement to make sense you would first have to say something about committees having email lists at all. 

This issue doesn’t seem difficult to address. How about adding this language where you suggest: “For each Party committee, an email list or similarly accessible communication forum shall be established to which any Party member can subscribe, with the ability to read and post. No email lists or other communication fora shall be established for the use of committee members to communicate with each other, that lack this accessibility.”

Must all committees have one?  Maybe you think so, but some committees might prefer to do all their business via Discord, or Signal, or maybe even Zoom. Debatable whether there should be a specific requirement. Debatable whether it belongs in the bylaws. Debatable whether exceptions should be made for certain kinds of business, e.g., where confidentiality might be helpful. Somebody would have to write up language which could easily get complicated. I think this is something on which there is much more diversity of opinion than you are imagining.

The next sentence could read, “The Executive Committee, by unanimous vote, may choose to limit or eliminate this transparency and participation requirement for any particular committee, for a set period of time not to exceed two years.”

My other two ideas – ending the practice of someone being able to both engage in debate and then immediately call the question, and requiring two in-person ExCom meetings at each convention – could each be rolled into existing proposals I think, if people are amenable.

 

I suppose the second one might be considered to qualify as an amendment to the proposal we are already offering to eliminate the current in-person requirement.

All right, here’s some language to add to your draft:  “The Executive Committee shall hold two in-person meetings at each convention, once prior to the start of convention business, for members of the outgoing committee, and once after the close of convention business for members of the newly seated committee. Each Executive Committee meeting shall allow any Party member wishing to give public comment, a reasonable opportunity to do so.”

[Starchild]

Joining a committee is one thing – being able to see what committees are doing and weigh in, is something else entirely. To use a government analogy, you might not want to be on the city council, but you might still want the ability to show up and weigh in on various matters they’re discussing at any given meeting.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

[Starchild]

I disagree it’s too late, Mike. There was no clearly communicated deadline, and in practical terms I don’t see any significant impediment. Remember, this is only the preliminary report. The intent of what I’m trying to add is clear. It’s okay if we just have placeholder language that ends up being modified later. 

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

[Mike Van Roy]

There was a clearly communicated deadline.

You haven't been your emails until recently.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

When do you believe a deadline for adding new placeholder language for proposals to the report was clearly communicated, Mike? I think I’ve now read every email from this committee, and don’t recall seeing any such message, aside from the recent reminders from Mimi and Joe about the 70 day deadline.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/ErG0T-cQ0JrDsdGgqmbhls-02Hv6AigOhbbtORyIFEFyoOp_Rn5RKs7cIzFcH4XSF0lzaQe6MZ0YH7dT697tq5DD54_WKLylvu12aNg_fOQ%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mike Van Roy]

We knew the deadline for the preliminary report months ago. I know you received those emails becsuse you responded to them.

What you missed in your email absence as that deadline got closer were specifics about when proposals from committee members were due, when we would vote on including them in the committee (Did you even do that yet?) and building preliminary rationalizations for them to include in that report.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/A85994A1-53E3-4699-AA9A-3C2E7603DF01%40earthlink.net.