proposals for which we have drafts

[Joe Dehn]

I have collected together many of the proposals that have been shared over the past week - a total of seven This includes the ones that Mike and I posted directly, as well as two of the ones from Mimi's set.  In cases where there were two versions, I tried to combine them into some sort of compromise in a reasonable way.  In some cases I made a few other additions, e.g., for the one about counties selecting delegates I added a phrase about when the membership numbers are to be counted; in the one about the Financial Standards Committee I added some more categories (beyond what Mike had added) of people who should not be appointed. None of this is meant to represent a final decision, but we need to have something concrete on which to base further discussion. If there is agreement that something should be changed (back) one way or another, there is still time to do that.

I have posted this collection at: http://dehnbase.org/lpc/temp/bylaws-draft.html

The proposals are not numbered yet -- they just have descriptive headings. (I also have not yet included any of the "rationale" text yet.)

Here is a list of the headings -- you can use these in your comments to identify the proposal to which you are referring:

• allow for state platform planks
• state convention delegates
• appeal of Program planks
• Financial Standards Committee membership
• eliminate EC in-person meeting requirement
• reinstatement of resigned members
• executive session

Please review each of these proposals carefully and comment in any cases where you notice something that is inconsistent or otherwise incorrect, where I left out something you consider important, where you find something problematic enough that you could not support the proposal as is (and say what sort of change might make it OK for you), and anything else that might be worth discussing.

Thanks to all who are working on this and who have contributed ideas!

[Mike Van Roy]

I'm OK with the changes made to my proposals (thus far).

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

--
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/64f26b4b25b4c196b8fb009ae30ccc74%40dehnbase.org.

[Mimi Robson]

Hi Joe,  

After talking to you tonight I've looked at the proposals on your site, and although I don't agree with some of them I will go ahead and support them being on the report.  The one exception is the Financial Standards Committee. . .I don't not like the language "at least 3 members" and would only support it if it's "3 members."  It if said " 5 members" I could also support it. . .I just don't like the ambiguity (but I do believe 3 members is sufficient for this committee).

I also noticed you included a few of my suggestions and I appreciate that.  I like the revised language Mike had on the proposal for Bylaw 12 and fully support that.  Even though some of my suggestions are already on your site, I'm attaching my language (which includes rationale and impact) which should be included in our final report.  I'm also including the proposal I have for getting rid of the change to require debate before calling the question.  If the committee doesn't want to add it to the report that's okay. . .I will submit it anyway, but I do believe that it should be left to the delegates (just like the state convention delegate proposal, which I personally don't support but am fine with letting the delegates make the decision).

FYI. . .I didn't read many of the rest of the emails.  Please let me know if I missed something super important.  Thanks!!

Mimi

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-03 21:35, Mimi Robson wrote:

Hi Joe,  

 

After talking to you tonight I've looked at the proposals on your site, and although I don't agree with some of them I will go ahead and support them being on the report.  The one exception is the Financial Standards Committee. . .I don't not like the language "at least 3 members" and would only support it if it's "3 members."  It if said " 5 members" I could also support it. . .I just don't like the ambiguity (but I do believe 3 members is sufficient for this committee).

The existing language (in Bylaw 12, Section 7) doesn't say anything at all about the number of members. I do think it's important to say something, because I would not want to see the EC appoint just one person, call him/her a "committee", and claim to have done their job.  I took the number three from the OPM, and that may be OK if it has been working (has it?).  I just thought it would be nice to allow the EC some flexibility to appoint five or whatever if they think that would be useful. But I don't care enough to argue about it, and since you apparently would really prefer a fixed number I've changed the draft accordingly.

[Joe Dehn]

There are now a total of 10 topics addressed in the draft proposals posted at http://dehnbase.org/lpc/temp/bylaws-draft.html (13 "proposals" including sub-proposals):

• allow for state platform planks - part A
• allow for state platform planks - part B (only if part A is adopted)

• state convention delegates
• appeal of Program planks
• Financial Standards Committee membership
• eliminate EC in-person meeting requirement
• reinstatement of resigned members
• executive session

• budget ratification
• suspension of officers and other EC members
• Operations Committee - part A
• Operations Committee - part B (only if part A is adopted)
• Operations Committee - part C (only if part A fails)

I'm not planning to write up any additional ones at this point, so please review them all and let me know if you notice any remaining issues that you see as reasons for us not to include them in our report. 

I will now start turning my attention to adding "summary" and "rationale" text.

[Mike Van Roy]

The current Bylaws don't address how many members can be on the Financial Standards Committee because that is currently covered in the Operations Manual. The Operations Manual specifies 3 members now. 

That was one of the changes the Executive Committee voted on while Chris Minoletti was Treasurer. Prior to that change the Vice Chair was an ex officio committee member and could pick however many other members he wanted.

Trust me, even getting 3 members on the committee has been a challenge! The committee currently has only two members and no chair. At one point both Mimi and I were on it but we had to resign due to being given other LPCA financial roles.

So I agree with Mimi on this one - and it is my proposal after all. It should stay at 3 members.

Mike

 

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

--
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/f7008cf7ac8ba08007a8dd209171dfa8%40dehnbase.org.

[Mike Van Roy]

September 9, 2025. That's when the change to the Operations Manual was made.

Mike

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CBatUU-sxgd5udxRWNSDzjpW5L_bEa40VtkCaZVV71k8HvcBQ9A7BSJp-wsLmltOcu0yMcKLt49oaeQ9Ios8rP206E22Nu4V6fLaRui4qP4%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

I have now added a brief (one sentence) "summary" at the top of each proposal. These are just intended to help the reader understand what the proposal is about -- they are NOT intended to explain all the implications or to present the arguments in favor. All that will be in the separate, much longer, "rationale" sections.  And yes, I intend to make use of the explanations that other have already drafted for the ones that they proposed, e.g., what Mimi had in her document, as much as possible as the basis for these sections. I do not want to have to write them all myself!

[Mimi Robson]

The Financial Standards Committee in the OPM didn't used to have any number associated with it as far as membership.  It simply said "The Executive Committee shall appoint a Financial Standards Committee during the first three months after a convention."  There were times in the past that there was in fact only one member of the committee.  But at least we typically had a report given at the convention.  Then in (I believe) the beginning of 2023 it was changed to say that the FSC was made up of the LPC Vice Chair (who would be the chair) and as many members at the Vice Chair felt was necessary.  During that time Gary was the Vice Chair and therefore was the chair of the FSC.  No report was given in either 24 or 25. 

The change that was made on September 9th was an amendment that I helped Chris write, because it seemed like a complete conflict that the Vice Chair (or any officer) could be a member of the committee.  I do agree that the committee makeup should be in the Bylaws, so the ExCom can't do shady things in the future.  So actually, the language "at least 3 members" is fine.  It's just a personal preference that there be an actual number for a committee.

Mimi

[Mimi Robson]

For the initial report, is the intention to just give the simple one sentence description and the amendment?  If so, I can help with writing rationale for some of the other amendments.

Also, did you see the one I added yesterday to get rid of the rule that requires at least one speaker on each side to speak to motions at convention?  If so, is there any interest in putting this on the report?  If there isn't that's okay, I just need to know so I know what I need to send in on my own.

--
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/a98cdd3864b97d0e64b39bb08bbb45e5%40dehnbase.org.

[Mike Van Roy]

I just checked the Operations Manual on the LPCA website. It does specify "three central committee members". Page 12, bottom paragraph, top line.

I think more than 3 members is overkill for this committee and given recent history we would be lucky to have even that. On the chance there is is an abundance of people looking for financial roles the Budget Committee has been shorthanded too.

All that said it's not a deal breaker if we put "at least three" on paper but we're a long way from achieving it.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrTdfJjHXaS0MzHk2ccOZb1Ao5DsnaEX%2BCiKAsus84Wr6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

I have added "rationale" sections for about half of the proposals - several based on Mimi's document, a few others that I wrote myself. I am planning to write a few more today. Mike - did you say you had something (or would soon have something) for the Operations Committee topic?

I also changed the style of the names to use initial caps, to make them look nicer as "headings".

I also moved up to the beginning the ones that are either updates to match current circumstances or moving existing rules into the bylaws, with the idea that those are likely to be less controversial and so require less time. (If anybody disagrees, either with that general idea or with its application to these specific proposals, please comment, but we will still be able to change the order of presentation later.)

Current status - ones with "rationale" section shown in bold":

• Budget Ratification
• Appeal of Program Planks
• Reinstatement of Resigned Members
• Executive Session
• Financial Standards Committee Membership
• Allow for State Platform Planks - part A
• Allow for State Platform Planks - part B (only if part A is adopted)
• State Convention Delegates
• Eliminate EC In-Person Meeting Requirement
• Suspension of Officers and Other EC Members

• Operations Committee - part A
• Operations Committee - part B (only if part A is adopted)
• Operations Committee - part C (only if part A fails)

[Mike Van Roy]

Yes, I will have something on the Operations Committee. I also had rationales included in my other proposals but I'm not tied to these.

MIke

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

--
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/9489f29247a00b8c8145c919b5d7e7fa%40dehnbase.org.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 11:10, Mimi Robson wrote:

For the initial report, is the intention to just give the simple one sentence description and the amendment?

 

 

No, I think there should be at least some "rationale" in the initial report, so that people who want to know about what we are proposing have a chance of to understand the point. Otherwise it's easy to imagine somebody getting confused about our intent and spreading that confusion to others, who won't have any other explanation to which they can refer. Of course if such confusion does arise we can then try to address it better in the later version of our report, by expanding the rationale section, but I don't think it's a good idea to start things out with no explanation.

 

 

If so, I can help with writing rationale for some of the other amendments.

 

 

See the message I sent a short tie ago for current status. If you want to either write something for one of the items for which there is currently nothing or make suggestions to improve one for which there is something, please go ahead

.

Also, did you see the one I added yesterday to get rid of the rule that requires at least one speaker on each side to speak to motions at convention?  If so, is there any interest in putting this on the report?  If there isn't that's okay, I just need to know so I know what I need to send in on my own.

 

 

I actually don't feel I understand the issue well enough to be able to say whether we should take a position on it.  If somebody can make a motion and get it voted on before anybody can say anything else, doesn't that create the danger that the convention might be "bullied" into doing something totally stupid just because the proposer was especially eloquent or well-known and most of the delegates weren't actually paying attention because they were eager to get to lunch or something?  If somebody is paying attention and sees that it would be a very bad idea shouldn't they given at least some chance to explain why?

 

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 11:31, Mike Van Roy wrote:

I just checked the Operations Manual on the LPCA website. It does specify "three central committee members". Page 12, bottom paragraph, top line.

 

I think more than 3 members is overkill for this committee and given recent history we would be lucky to have even that. On the chance there is is an abundance of people looking for financial roles the Budget Committee has been shorthanded too.

 

All that said it's not a deal breaker if we put "at least three" on paper but we're a long way from achieving it.

 

The draft currently says three and the rationale notes that this is already in the OPM version. But this is something we can easily change later if we get feedback suggesting that allowing more than three would be better. (Like lots of people volunteering to serve, and expressing dismay that they might not be chosen?)

 

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 11:46, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

Yes, I will have something on the Operations Committee. I also had rationales included in my other proposals but I'm not tied to these.

 

 

There was a bunch of discussion on the in-person meeting question, but I don't remember anything that provided a compact/organized consolidation of the significant points.  I am sure I could create such text by reviewing the relevant messages, but if somebody else wants to give it a try please go ahead.

 

I'd like to be able to concentrate my attention on the state platform plank and delegates selected by counties proposals.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/aPGQPORhm8D2axTHB4fCJ80AqYTs1-6kP1gSB1yDEeh8xGi8DEoKYgk2O7mvY-NI5ySeZeBGCaqDeAdXhqeydHAyDeIwqFmZbK471cgmfWE%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mike Van Roy]

Budget Ratification – Approve including. I would be happier if we could get rid of the language about “eligible positions” but that is a topic for another time. 

Appeal of Program Planks – Oppose including as is. Mimi has chaired the Judicial Committee, and I will defer to her judgement on what threshold is appropriate for Judicial Committee attention. If she agrees with 3 central committee members, I will support 3 central committee members and change my vote but I believe her current position is that 1 central committee member is sufficient. 

Reinstatement of Resigned Members – Approve including as is. 

Executive Session – Approve including as is. 

Financial Standards Committee Membership – Approve including as is. 

Allow for State Platform Planks Parts A &B -  Oppose including. Two-thirds of delegates not long ago already decided they did not want a state-specific platform, and I doubt a substantial number have since changed their minds. It is a waste of delegation time. 

State Convention Delegates – Oppose including. This is a solution in search of a problem and would consume state convention time without providing meaningful benefit. 

County leaders I have spoken with do *not* want the administrative burden of holding delegate-selection meetings—especially when most counties will have *more delegate slots than applicants*. For would-be delegates, this adds another meeting they must attend simply to be eligible to vote later, at their own expense. 

Affiliates already struggle to publicize their own annual meetings. Most elect new officers in January, and the state convention occurs in February. For this proposal to be effective, brand-new affiliate officers and brand-new delegates would somehow need to be fully familiar with LPCA-level issues and internal elections almost immediately. That is unrealistic and reduces the value of the selection process. 

There is also a fairness issue. In counties without functioning affiliates, the Area Coordinator can appoint a pro tempore chair who becomes a delegate automatically, yet any other member from that county must secure 4/5 approval from already-seated delegates. This creates the possibility that someone could travel to convention, at their own expense, only to learn *after arriving* that they cannot vote. I raised this issue previously, and it remains unaddressed in the proposal. 

While the proposal’s goal—greater county involvement—is valid in principle, the reality is that *this is the only bylaws change that affects county affiliates*, and its practical downsides outweigh any theoretical benefit. 

Eliminate EC In-Person Meeting Requirement – Approve including as is. 

Suspension of Officers and Other Executive Committee Members – Approve including as is. 

Operations Committee Parts A, B & C  - Approve including as is. 

I'll get to work on the Operations Committee rationale and tighten the Eliminate EC In-Person one.

Mike

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, December 4th, 2025 at 11:33 AM, Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:

[Joe Dehn]

Thanks for your statements of which proposals you support including in our report. I believe that Mimi has already stated that she supports including all of these, although you have raised the question of whether she supports one of them in its most recent form (see note about that below) -- and you have indicated that your own vote could change based on how she feels about it. I am in favor of including them all.  I have not heard anything from Starchild regarding which proposals he supports, or anything else, by e-mail or any other channel, since my phone conversation with him Tuesday evening.

Here is a summary of how I understand the positions of the voting members of this committee:

Joe	Mike	Mimi	Starchild	Proposal
yes	yes	yes		Budget Ratification
yes	no	?		Appeal of Program Planks
yes	yes	yes		Reinstatement of Resigned Members
yes	yes	yes		Executive Session
yes	yes	yes		Financial Standards Committee Membership
yes	no	yes

Allow for State Platform Planks - part A

yes	no	yes

Allow for State Platform Planks - part B

yes	no	yes		State Convention Delegates
yes	yes	yes

Eliminate EC In-Person Meeting Requirement

yes	yes	yes

Suspension of Officers and Other EC Members

yes	yes	yes

Operations Committee - part A

yes	yes	yes

Operations Committee - part B

yes	yes	yes

Operations Committee - part C

With respect to that one item concerning appeal of Program planks, for the reasons I have stated I don't think it's a good idea to force the Judicial Committee to act on a matter of that type upon the objection of just one person. I had originally proposed a significantly larger number, but when Mimi objected I reduced the number (in the draft) to three, and I had the impression that Mimi was OK with that.  But I am not absolutely sure of that.

Mimi, could you clarify? Is the requirement of three central committee members to trigger the JC review (as in the draft currently posted) acceptable to you?  Mike, if she says that is acceptable to her, will you change your vote to yes?

And Starchild, please respond now with your votes on all of these.

Again, the current drafts can be found at: http://dehnbase.org/lpc/temp/bylaws-draft.html

Thanks.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/8U5tJbZY3rl9hwdl2e3SVPfykOdACMXfgzIDrZ4PZ8t5BBwxNKPXtFtQdTtku0Ip1__ll_9k2vO9ZQ1DUL2jvmjQB3o0_pbvouDkwhPtu-I%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mimi Robson]

Hi All,

I haven't had a chance to look at everything and won't be able to until I get home from work tonight.  However, in regard to the Program proposal, after speaking with Joe last night I can support having it be "three central committee members."  Honestly, I think that we do need to change the JC bylaws to have it be more than one member needed to make an appeal (except of course for appeals regarding member or officer removal) but I don't want to get into that this year, which is why I thought it weird to have a certain requirement for this and nothing else. So with that all being said I support it in the report as is.

I also just want to note that I am voting for inclusion of all of the proposal regardless if I support them  For instance, I don't support either the delegates to the state convention proposal or the elimination of the in-person ExCom meeting, but I think it's not our job to decide, but rather the delegates.  I also believe that if we get to the convention delegate proposal it will be voted down very quickly, or someone might make a motion to postpone indefinitely (that's what happened the last time someone tried to make a similar amendment). 

I would still like to include my proposal to delete Bylaw 20, section 7 as it would just be easier if it were part of the report, but if the rest of you are really opposed then that's okay as well.

Mimi

[Mike Van Roy]

Given this information I'll change my vote on Appeal of Program Planks to Yes As Is.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-04 16:20, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

Given this information I'll change my vote on Appeal of Program Planks to Yes As Is.

 

 

Thanks to both you and Mimi for the updates.

 

Updated table of votes on the posted proposals:

Joe	Mike	Mimi	Starchild	Proposal
yes	yes	yes		Budget Ratification

yes

yes

yes

Appeal of Program Planks

[Joe Dehn]

i have added a "rationale" section for the State Platform Planks proposals.  I plan to work next on the State Convention Delegates proposal. I have still not seen any text suggested for this purpose for the In-Person Meeting and Operations Committee proposals.

Current status - ones with "rationale" section shown in bold:

• Budget Ratification
• Appeal of Program Planks
• Reinstatement of Resigned Members
• Executive Session
• Financial Standards Committee Membership
• Allow for State Platform Planks - part A
• Allow for State Platform Planks - part B (only if part A is adopted)
• State Convention Delegates
• Eliminate EC In-Person Meeting Requirement
• Suspension of Officers and Other EC Members
• Operations Committee - part A
• Operations Committee - part B (only if part A is adopted)
• Operations Committee - part C (only if part A fails)

[Starchild]

I don’t want to get rid of the rule requiring at least one speaker for and against, if there is one. That seems like a good safeguard, as I think it was Joe who discussed in one of the past messages I’ve been reading.

I would (as posted separately earlier) like to get rid of the rule (or rather, create a rule to override RONR) that lets someone speak in debate on an item and then immediately call the question. How do you and others feel about this?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrTvyz7cKqNdKyLfn4L__%2Bv1ws7hkAzu%3DM8%3DE2cmzj1h8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

I have now added a "rationale" section for the proposal relating to state convention delegates.

I have also added short (one paragraph) rationales for the remaining proposals. Consider these as "placeholders" which can be easily replaced if somebody writes something better/longer.  But they can also serve as a backup plan if something better doesn't come along.  My intention is to submit this report this evening, and I do not want it to include any proposals for which we have provided no explanation at all.

[Mimi Robson]

Joe, is it possible for you to send me everything as a word document?  Or text in an email?  I want to be able to look at these on the plane and I can't count on having good internet access.  I will be boarding by 1:30 so before that would be great if you can do it.

Thanks!

--
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/5c15c247808de1337b07e8c0998437b5%40dehnbase.org.

[Honor (Mimi) Robson]

I think RONR already has plenty of safeguards. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2025, at 1:12 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

 I don’t want to get rid of the rule requiring at least one speaker for and against, if there is one. That seems like a good safeguard, as I think it was Joe who discussed in one of the past messages I’ve been reading.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/BBF102AA-2A8F-4546-8049-02982D3A0E00%40earthlink.net.

[Mike Van Roy]

If it does then it's superfluous to also have it in the bylaws. Perhaps we could also move it to the convention rules if people insist on keeping some official protection.

So add it to the suggestion list for next year?

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

Now that I think of it the convention rules is the only place it should be since it deals with something that can only happen at convention anyway.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-05 11:51, Mimi Robson wrote:

Joe, is it possible for you to send me everything as a word document?  Or text in an email?  I want to be able to look at these on the plane and I can't count on having good internet access.  I will be boarding by 1:30 so before that would be great if you can do it.

 

Sorry for not responding sooner -- I have to sleep sometimes!

 

It's just a plain HTML document.  You can simply save it in a file on your computer and then view it any time you want from there with your favorite browser.

 

I don't see how it will help -- if you can receive e-mail you can probably also look at a page on the web -- but I've also attached a copy to this message.

 

[Mimi Robson]

My hope was to get it before I got on the plane.  But as it turns out the plane wifi is working fine (it doesn't always).

I've looked at all the rationale you've provided and I think it looks good!  I am fine with voting for this report for our initial submission.  For the final report I would like to formate each proposal the way I've got it on my proposal as I think it makes it easier for people to follow, but I am fine with not having that done right now.

It looks like I will only be submitting one bylaw amendment on my own (unless I think of something this weekend. . .lol).

Mimi

[Mimi Robson]

Currently it's in Bylaw 20 which covers the annual convention.  I will be submitting the propsal to get rid of it seperate from the committee report, unless others decide to put it on the report.  I want this to be up to the delegates, not just the 4 of us.

Mimi

[Mike Van Roy]

I am working on rationale for dropping in-person EC meeting and abolishing the OC as I type this. Should be done in an hour or two.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

--

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/CAD2vyrQ_FKEivySzcFGNP89cd7ksn3VWe3aJ5dvvPqRUoGdEtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mimi Robson]

Oh, okay.  I saw there was already rationale written, so I didn't realize it might change.

After this initial report we can fine tune rationale and even perfect proposals, so long as we don't add anything or totally change the proposal, so I'm not as worried about what's there for this first submission.

Mimi

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-05 15:18, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

I am working on rationale for dropping in-person EC meeting and abolishing the OC as I type this. Should be done in an hour or two.

 

 

OK -- I will be watching for them. But please take a look at the "placeholder" text that is already there and try to include any of the points that I mentioned in those paragraphs.  I don't want to have to spend a lot of time trying to weave them together.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/dSMyDt4sfIi4JbHSYmfV5qo6Os1N9by7wd3POi3q7nSRiNkk20ldvXSz8ULY0XmsTJIdEyoWIgu54AhOAZ_Xzub4MnQZj3XBMJhOsAO8pdU%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mike Van Roy]

Guess I should have refreshed my pages first.

At a quick glance the placeholder rationale for the in-person meetings is better than what I was working on (which was about one specific meeting) so for now I'm inclined to keep what is already there.

I do have some improvements (to me) that make a better case for getting rid of the Operations Committee, and I will continue working on that, but since the urgency has passed I'll probably send it tomorrow.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Joe Dehn]

OK, except that I am planning to submit the initial report tonight. I don't want there to be any question about whether we have met the deadline, and I am going to be busy all day tomorrow with other meetings (unrelated to the LP). And one oher member (Mimi) is also not going to be available tomorrow due to being busy with something else.

So if you have some additional point about the Operations Committee thing that you think is very important to have mentioned, please send it along now -- even if it's just a phrase or sentence that I can stick in for now.

Otherwise we can include expanded/improved versions of the "rationale" statements for any of the proposals in our final report.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/_tZNUQ3HtMfELtQesecYgUG-XtMkBgnKHwZUdOG6zFM-tb9tC73gQ1o_4ag8GNe5pck8Osp7VkQUMnFXNlXuCw59OUG86SWTANoWCDl182I%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Starchild]

What time are you planning to do this, Joe?

Have you added any of the stuff we talked about? I gave you some specific language.

Remember we can always take stuff out of our preliminary report later if needed. It’s adding new material that is more questionable. So I think we should err on the side of including my proposals for now at least.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/12edee64ee4760eece139f26d67c2638%40dehnbase.org.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-05 19:01, Starchild wrote:

What time are you planning to do this, Joe?

 

I'm working on it right now.

 

Have you added any of the stuff we talked about? I gave you some specific language.

 

Remember we can always take stuff out of our preliminary report later if needed. It's adding new material that is more questionable. So I think we should err on the side of including my proposals for now at least.

 

 

What you seem to be missing here is that a report of a committee like this is not just a collection of random ideas that have been mentioned by some individual member. The ideas have to at least be reviewed by other committee members, who then somehow indicate their agreement that they should be included. While in theory we could add anything up to "the last minute", that's not a practical option at this point for any of the proposals that you have mentioned, because there has not been an opportunity to determine whether other committee members want to see them included in the report -- and there is no time left to accomplish that, especially with one committee member already unavailable as of today (which I specifically mentioned would be the case during our phone conversation on Tuesday).

 

It might make sense to include a "placeholder" proposal for further elaboration later if there was a clear consensus of the committee that we really need to address some particular topic in this year's report, even though we don't yet know how we might address it, although even that would I think be stretching the boundaries of the intent of the rules -- and too much like the games that government legislators play to avoid constitutional limits on their proceedings.  But I don't see anything even close to that with respect to any of the ideas that you have been bringing up since you started participating again in the discussions of this committee, just 27 hours ago, after the rest of us had already mostly sorted out our views on the ideas introduced earlier.

Note, however, that if you personally believe any of those ideas are so important that they must be brought before the convention this time, you do have the option of submitting them with advance notice as an individual member, just as Mimi and Aaron have done for past conventions.

 

[Mike Van Roy]

To his credit Joe has gone out of his way to put ideas on paper that were submitted by others, but that's not really the committee chair's job. It's the proposer's job to sell ideas to the committee and it should be that person's job to draft the preliminary language and lay out the basic rationale for the committee to refine. The chair's job is to make that process orderly and make sure nothing falls through the cracks.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

"It's the proposer's job to sell ideas to the committee and it should be that person's job to draft the preliminary language and lay out the basic rationale for the committee to refine. The chair's job is to make that process orderly and make sure nothing falls through the cracks.”

Where are you reading this in our bylaws or RONR, Mike? Or is this just your personal opinion?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

[Mike Van Roy]

My personal opinion. But it stands to reason if someone has an idea they care about they should take ownership of making it into a proposal rather than dropping the idea on the committee's lap and hoping for the best. I've been on bylaws committees in other organizations, even chaired some of those committees, and that's generally what works best for the proposer and committee alike.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

I presented three proposals, as well as offering specific language on others. Apparently none of the language I offered made it into the report, but there are a couple months to make adjustments to that report and add, at least, ONE of the things I suggested – the language about having two in-person ExCom meetings at conventions, which Joe said might be considered to qualify as an amendment to the proposal we’re already adding about eliminating the requirement for an in-person meeting outside conventions.

Your opinion that "it stands to reason if someone has an idea they care about they should take ownership of making it into a proposal rather than dropping the idea on the committee's lap and hoping for the best” also does illustrate the value of allowing party members to participate in committee discussions, so they aren’t limited to just sending something to a committee (dropping it into their lap and hoping for the best), but can stick around and help craft their proposals into usable form.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

[Mike Van Roy]

Right, but nobody ever objected to including non-committee members in our discussions. Richard and June did just that. 

What you're forgetting, or maybe you didn't know, is the proposal to get rid of the in-person EC meeting was *my* proposal and I don't want it to be used to create another in-person meeting the EC doesn't want. Even Mimi, who *does* want more in-person meetings, doesn't see the value of that particular meeting.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/BE64AC9A-C39D-4462-A65D-5CDE047AA358%40earthlink.net.

[Starchild]

Mike,

I’m glad to hear you say there are no objections to including non-committee members in discussions. That’s the whole intent behind the proposal I’ve been promoting to have committee email lists to which ordinary party members can subscribe and post.

I wasn’t paying that much attention to who came up with which of the proposals in the draft report, but if you’ve served on other bylaws committees, you presumably know that once a committee adopts a motion or proposal, it becomes the property of the body, not that of the individual who wrote it. So while I respect your opinion in opposition to the proposed amendment, there’s no reason it should carry more weight than any of our views on the matter.

It sounds like you’re saying the Executive Committee as a whole doesn't want an in-person meeting at the start of conventions. Do you know this to be true? If so, can you provide more details? What’s the rationale? 

The main argument I see in favor is to preserve some in-person meeting time for the body, at a time and place likely to be convenient for committee members and non-committee members alike to attend without additional travel expenses, or paying extra for a room as has sometimes occurred (since we already have the convention space booked). I think there’s also value in letting ordinary party members see their representatives in action shortly before they will be voting to fill those positions in party elections.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

[Mike Van Roy]

Glad you asked. First of all the committee is not the body. The delegates are the body. You are correct that the delegate body can make whatever changes it wants to any of these proposals, mine included, but that happens after debate and with a vote to amend. You've seen that process play out many times by now. There has been no vote to amend my proposal in committee nor has there even been a motion to do so. Even if you made such a motion and Joe seconded it Mimi and I would vote against it and you would not have a majority. 

Sorry, you don't get to rewrite another person's proposal just because one person wants it.

We can deduce the Executive Committee does not want an in-person meeting right before the convention from the fact that nothing actually prevents them from doing it, they could easily schedule one if they wanted one, but they haven't done so.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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