mechanism for adopting state platform planks

[Joe Dehn]

There has already been a bit of discussion on this, prior to establishment of this discussion list -- might as well start with that.

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

Subject:	Re: Bylaws Proposal re: CA specific platform
Date:	2025-10-02 17:30
From:	Richard Fast <fastri...@gmail.com>
To:	Joe Dehn <n...@ca.lp.org>
Cc:	Bylaws Committee <byl...@ca.lp.org>

Dear Bylaws Committee, 

 

Thank you for your feedback. I'm less concerned with the process than the final result. I worry about giving the delegates sufficient notice and time to read all proposed documents prior to the convention.  What I don't want to happen is the delegates have a menu to choose from but the majority protest that they did not have enough time to read them and properly discuss them and then nothing happens. My estimate is that it would take  two hours for someone to comfortably read the 3 documents I mentioned, without any other document being added for consideration. By itself, that should be reasonable, but of course the delegates, if they're doing their homework, will have many other proposals to consider (Bylaws, etc.) and so it is easy to imagine delegates only focus on Bylaws and forget/sidestep all the platform documents and then, when it's time to consider this proposal, they were so distracted that we don't have the serious discussion that adoption of a state specific platform really deserves. So, in an effort to make this proposal as simple as possible, I will heed your advice and try to craft specific language that takes that into account. I welcome anyone who wishes to help me in this project. 

 

Richard Fast 

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 2:43 PM Joe Dehn <n...@ca.lp.org> wrote:

I agree with what others have said, that it is not the job of the Bylaws Committee to propose a platform, or even a menu of possible platforms.  It would be our job, if we believe that the general idea has support from enough members, to propose the mechanisms through which the delegates can construct a platform, a mechanism that might end up looking very similar to what we had before. However, the way that Richard presented his request does suggest, if we are going to address this issue at all, that we consider a mechanism that more clearly allows for adoption/replacement of the entire platform, instead of or as an alternative to making incremental modifications.  As we all presumably remember, this was a very contentious issue in the past, with some people saying that the old Platform was just too far gone and had to be entirely replaced with something very different in size or style, and other people arguing that the bylaws did not allow any such move -- that to accomplish that would require separate votes on each and every plank.  With the old bylaws provisions and the old Platform both now gone, there is not much point in arguing about either of them, and we are now in a position to think about those two approaches in a more detached way.

On Sunday, September 28, 2025 at 4:33:26 PM UTC-7 Richard Fast wrote:

All,

 

When the LPCA lost its state specific platform a few years ago, the party also lost part of its unique identity as the California affiliate of the national party. 

 

To rectify this problem, I proposed eliminating in the LPCA Bylaws all mention of  the national platform being the state platform and instead, inserting new language mandating a California specific platform. 

 

Assuming this idea is well received by the delegates in San Diego, I would further propose giving the delegates three (3) documents to choose from: 1) the original LPCA platform prior to its deletion, 2) Judge Jim Gray's proposed platform, and 3) Kevin Shaw's skeleton platform.  I would also welcome consideration of  any other similar  documents. In true LP fashion, NOTA would of course be included as an option. 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarity on this concept. 

 

In Liberty,

 

Richard Fast

Secretary

LP San Francisco

 

 

 

  

[June Genis]

I believe in baby steps toward a complicated goal. I therefore suggest we start with what we already have authorization for which is the Program committee. I would like to see them create a currently topical document that could then be submitted as a whole to the convention each time for adoption. I believe that any CA platform should be specifically focused on CA issues plus any topics not referenced in the natonal platform that we think should be. The only voting option would be to accept the Program committee's submission(s) or reject them. It then becomes the responsibility of Program committee to see that potential convention dlegates are informed about what they intend to submit well before the actual convention date.

June

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
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/e6a9003a84b4562475a0ab227e381dc0%40dehnbase.org.

[Mimi Robson]

I actually really like June's suggestion.  We already have a program, which currently is approved by the ExCom, not the membership, but I think that should be amended to be approved at convention.  Currently the Program has 5 planks, and we may want to increase that maybe to seven?  And at convention each plank could be changed, amended, or kept the same based on the program committee report (there may be times they don't have any changes they want to make.

If we do go the route of once again having a platform, I agree with Joe that being we would be starting with nothing we would need a bylaw that would allow for a new platform to be adopted as a single document in a single motion, with likely LOTS of amendments.  Once we have a new platform I don't think we should go back to the old way of only being able to make amendments plank by plank.  I think if the delegates in the future decide a document isn't serving its purpose they should be able to delete it in a single motion, and then adopt a new platform in a single motion. I think if we did do this, we would need to have a platform committee and we wouldn't actually be voting on a platform until 2027.  Although I would suppose a motion could be made from the floor to adopt a platform at this convention, but that wouldn't be the bylaws committee doing it.

Mimi

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAOCnFCAEWE_inD3pyAX0VAbMRNAnYdWJxNfr9kG0u%2B1YmpDrxg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

I don’t think a brief 5 or 7-plank Program is a good substitute for having a full party Platform. I strongly believe in the value of a detailed document that identifies and stands in solidarity with as many victims of unjust government laws, edicts, policies, and practices as possible, clearly articulating how the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression and individual rights applies to each topic. When non-Libertarians go to our website and search our platform to find out what we have to say about the particular issue that matters to them, I want them to find us saying something detailed, intelligent, and pro-freedom on the matter, even if it is an issue that’s considered “minor” or “fringe” by most of the public. Enough different issues of this sort, each with its small cadre of dedicated single-issue supporters, can add up to an electoral majority.

While I agree with restoring approval of the Program and Platform to our broader membership at conventions, I disagree with only allowing members to vote pre-written documents up or down without amendment. Though some people find it tedious, I see real value in the kind of process of public, ordered discussion and amendment among large groups of Libertarians that our convention Platform debates have historically featured. It empowers grassroots participation, gives people the opportunity to think about language and ideas and have pre-conceived notions challenged, while at the same time building up over time a document that has been studied, argued over, and affirmed by large numbers of freedom advocates.

Again, I think this is the kind of operation we want to see in government – real debate among members of legislative bodies, on the floor of their chambers, in public view, on the specific language of proposed State legislation and edicts, not just approval or rejection of measures in broad brushstrokes with little opportunity to question, debate, or amend the details. And I strongly believe our own party operations should mirror what we call upon government to do, and would seek to implement if elected, that this will give us earned credibility with voters and the public.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrSxpTh68-4es7h2hwsqZUf%3DDUFz3QMkc%2Bm2p4F57%3DAvzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-10-21 21:43, Starchild wrote:

I don't think a brief 5 or 7-plank Program is a good substitute for having a full party Platform. I strongly believe in the value of a detailed document that identifies and stands in solidarity with as many victims of unjust government laws, edicts, policies, and practices as possible, clearly articulating how the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression and individual rights applies to each topic. When non-Libertarians go to our website and search our platform to find out what we have to say about the particular issue that matters to them, I want them to find us saying something detailed, intelligent, and pro-freedom on the matter, even if it is an issue that's considered "minor" or "fringe" by most of the public. Enough different issues of this sort, each with its small cadre of dedicated single-issue supporters, can add up to an electoral majority.

 

While I agree with restoring approval of the Program and Platform to our broader membership at conventions, I disagree with only allowing members to vote pre-written documents up or down without amendment. Though some people find it tedious, I see real value in the kind of process of public, ordered discussion and amendment among large groups of Libertarians that our convention Platform debates have historically featured. It empowers grassroots participation, gives people the opportunity to think about language and ideas and have pre-conceived notions challenged, while at the same time building up over time a document that has been studied, argued over, and affirmed by large numbers of freedom advocates.

 

 

I agree on both counts.  The "Program" idea was introduced, both here in California and at the national level, specifically to be different from the Platform.  It has a different scope (only a handful of issues), different emphasis for the issues it addresses ("practical", "interim" vs. "principled", "long-term") and different mechanisms for adoption.  These things all fit together, in each case, to make the whole thing work (or not work, depending on ones point of view) and I don't think we will be better off by trying to combine them.  And I found the process of developing our Platform, with that debate at convention, to be a net positive for the party.

 

Yes, I understand that there are people who don't like either the idea of a comprehensive, principled Platform or the messy business of LP members actually arguing about policy.  And some of those people supported the idea of a Program specifically as a way to eliminate the Platform, both the document and the process. But personally, I think there is room for both, and the people who think one or the other is more important should just work on that and let the others do likewise.

 

If enough people think there is room for both, I think it would be reasonable for us to try to come up with some mechanism for having a state Platform again.  If not, we should probably just not bother.  I don't see any benefit in modifying the current bylaws language for the Program slightly and trying to pass that off as a substitute for a real Platform -- it won't satisfy anybody who actually wants a Platform of the sort we had in the past.

 

[Mimi Robson]

Starchild wrote, "I disagree with only allowing members to vote pre-written documents up or down without amendment."  I believe that was in response to my post.  I actually said that the initial document could be moved in a single motion for adoption, but I was clear there would likely be lots of amendments to follow.  I mean, we would have to start with something right?

And then for the future, if 2/3s of the members don't like a platform in the future, there is no reason to make them vote plank by plank to remove it.  What is likely to happen if a new platform is adopted, there will be amendments to it over the next few conventions to fine tune it, and that would obviously be plank by plank (or portion of a plank).

[Starchild]

Mimi,

Yes, I was replying to your comment about letting the party’s Platform be deleted in a single motion, and I’m glad to see you weren’t suggesting amendments should be disallowed. However I don’t think making it possible to replace or delete our Platform in one fell swoop is a good idea. You say there “would likely be lots of amendments to follow” if that were proposed, but “likely” is not a guarantee, and I’m not sure even that much is true. Unless special safeguards are adopted, it would depend on both time being made available in the convention schedule for lots of amendments to be proposed and discussed, and on delegates having the patience to engage in that process without someone calling the question and forcing a vote or otherwise cutting short debate. 

The reason to require Platform planks to be deleted one by one rather than en masse, is because we want to have a Platform! I don’t see a ready way to allow an entire existing Platform to be replaced with a new one, without also potentially allowing it to be replaced with little or nothing. Do you have any safeguards in mind to prevent that from happening?

How would you feel about allowing wholesale replacement or deletion of the Platform only with a strong super-majority, say 5/6ths of voting delegates?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

[Mimi Robson]

I understand your concern, but you need to remember a lot of members weren't happy with the old platform and attempted to remove it several times.  In 2019 the convention delegates were successful and the JC overturned it.  Then after other failed attempts it was deleted in its entirety.  I am saying that if there isn't a mechanism to delete it if it gets out of control again (not my words. . .the words of many others) than I think the likelihood of anything getting adopted in the first place.

But anyway. . .I am willing to look at amendments to the bylaws as a member of the bylaws committee, and a voting member of the party, but I don't have the bandwidth to be involved in drafting any amendments for this.

In Liberty,

Mimi Robson

[Mike Van Roy]

Hi all

I wasn't around for the Great Platform Wars but let me finally offer my thoughts.

Who does the platform benefit? It mostly benefits candidates who want guidance in crafting their campaign messaging. 

In theory if there is a state issue and people outside the party want to know the party's position on that issue, the platform could be of value. But of greater value would be a Beacon post or press release or something else on our website.

But who wrote the platforms? People who, for whatever reason, really like writing platforms.

So, in software terms, there was a disconnect between the end users and the developers. The end users needed a specific thing but the developers did their own thing.

Plus I'm not sure it makes sense to have a platform adopted by one group and a program adopted by another. it almost guarantees that eventually they'll conflict.

These would have to be considered in the drafting of a bylaw to bring the platform back.

But as others have said I'm not sure that there is popular support for doing so anyway. If there isn't then I don't think it's something the committee should take up.

Richard or whoever could also submit a proposal as an individual member and other individual members, on the committee or not, are free to help him do that.

Mike Van Roy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CAD2vyrT-OJCuNp1Xa6YdTzYipd7RCB-6BCqp2MYM1b1T%2BqYVMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-11-19 10:13, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

Hi all

 

I wasn't around for the Great Platform Wars but let me finally offer my thoughts.

 

Who does the platform benefit? It mostly benefits candidates who want guidance in crafting their campaign messaging. 

 

While a Platform can be useful for candidates, especially when dealing with issues with which they are not personally familiar, that's not its only purpose.  I don't even see that as its main purpose.  Its more important purposes relate to building and maintaining our internal identity, including its roles in recruiting and retention and as an "internal education" mechanism.

 

 

In theory if there is a state issue and people outside the party want to know the party's position on that issue, the platform could be of value. But of greater value would be a Beacon post or press release or something else on our website.

 

It's true that a Platform plank is often not the best format for presentation to media and the general public.  But that doesn't mean the Platform isn't important for that purpose.  The Platform provides a consistent basis for the materials we prepare for actually giving to media and the public.  Press releases, op-ed pieces, brochures, video advertising, social media "memes", and all the rest are better ways to deliver the positions to various segments of the public, but the Platform defines what those positions are, so that they all can be delivering the same message.

 

 

But who wrote the platforms? People who, for whatever reason, really like writing platforms.

 

So, in software terms, there was a disconnect between the end users and the developers. The end users needed a specific thing but the developers did their own thing.

 

That's a good reason to take a better look at how we develop software -- it is not a reason to not have software.

 

 

Plus I'm not sure it makes sense to have a platform adopted by one group and a program adopted by another. it almost guarantees that eventually they'll conflict.

 

No, when we had both they were specifically required to not conflict.  The Platform had precedence and any Program plank inconsistent with it could be challenged.

 

These would have to be considered in the drafting of a bylaw to bring the platform back.

 

But as others have said I'm not sure that there is popular support for doing so anyway. If there isn't then I don't think it's something the committee should take up.

 

Personally I consider this important enough, and of interest to enough members, that I think it would make sense for us to come up with a plausible proposal, and give the members a chance to consider it.  If they don't like it, they can vote it down, and even if they do perhaps the debate will tell us something about what might work better, in terms of addressing the concerns of the people who feel a Platform is needed, for next time.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/U5ZYKORLNjQbheIG-dBRPZl2Hm2FYKXGs_GC4hhXWPq7xestmENP7R4UU_dD7BCYaGnXjBazpNJxTRr8_1Byni3ZVD3oy49EzyRb_EP_Yqs%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mimi Robson]

I personally am fine with presenting an amendment to the bylaws that would allow for the creation and maintenance of a state specific platform, however I am not personally interested in writing it, because it's going to likely be a lot of work.  I am sorry if that sounds bad, but that is why when Richard initially suggested this, I said it would be great if he could present some language to this committee to consider and possibly fine-tune.  I believe adding back a platform will be a lot of revisions to the bylaws (when we had one it was mentioned in multiple places in the bylaws and would be again), so it's going to be a lot of work.  If someone wants to do the work I will for sure help to fine tune it, but I believe we are running out of time at this point.

Mimi

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-11-24 17:35, Mimi Robson wrote:

I personally am fine with presenting an amendment to the bylaws that would allow for the creation and maintenance of a state specific platform, however I am not personally interested in writing it, because it's going to likely be a lot of work.  I am sorry if that sounds bad, but that is why when Richard initially suggested this, I said it would be great if he could present some language to this committee to consider and possibly fine-tune.  I believe adding back a platform will be a lot of revisions to the bylaws (when we had one it was mentioned in multiple places in the bylaws and would be again), so it's going to be a lot of work.  If someone wants to do the work I will for sure help to fine tune it, but I believe we are running out of time at this point.

I don't think it has to be that complicated. We don't to recreate what we had before.  And we can stick with the idea of using the national Platform as the basis for our own -- all we need is a way to add planks of our own when we consider that useful for whatever reason. The most important thing is to establish that structural relationship.  Everything else could be left to the Convention Rules, or even handled on an ad hoc basis as the need arises.  But it wouldn't be hard to add some obvious procedural elements to the Bylaws, which in many cases could e accomplished by adapting language that is already there for handling some other document.

Here's a draft for the most important change

Bylaw 21: Platform

The national party platform shall be the Party Platform.

Section 1: The Party Platform shall consist of the national party Platform plus any additional state planks adopted by the Party.

Section 2: State planks may be adopted or modified by a 2/3 vote of the delegates at a convention with previous notice, or by a 3/4 vote without previous notice. State planks may be deleted by a majority vote.

Section 3: State planks may not be in conflict with the Statement of Principles or the national party Platform. Upon appeal by 10 delegates, any proposed or adopted plank which is alleged to be in violation of this section shall be reviewed by the Judicial Committee. If the Judicial Committee rules that the language is in violation of this section, any vote to adopt the language shall be considered void.

We could create language defining a Platform Committee by just copying the existing language for the Bylaws Committee:

Bylaw 17: Committees

Section 3: Platform Committee

Not later than sixty days following the close of each convention, the Executive Committee shall appoint a Platform Committee of five State Central Committee members to recommend changes to the state planks of the Platform. The Platform 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 Platform 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.

One other minor change for consistency:

Bylaw 15: Judicial Committee

Section 2 (3/4 required to amend)

A Judicial Committee member may not be a member of the Executive Committee,
the Operations Committee, the Platform Committee, or the Program Committee. The Judicial Committee
shall be the final body of appeal in all Party matters, subject to the provision that a
decision of the Committee may be overturned by a three-quarters vote of a
convention.

We would probably also want to make a few changes to the Convention Rules:

In Rule 3, Sections 1 and 2, add "Platform," after "Bylaws,".

In Rule 4, add "Platform Committee report;" as item E and re-letter.

In Rule 6, change "The Bylaws Committee shall designate each of its proposals" to "The Bylaws and Platform Committees shall designate each of their proposals".

Create a new "Rule 8: Platform Committee" with text adapted from the existing Rule 7 and re-number.

[Mike Van Roy]

I'm still not convinced this is of interest to the members.

That said, I admit the only way to know for sure is put something in front of them and either they vote for it or they don't. I also admit if it came down to a vote of the bylaws committee right now it would probably be 3-1.

So if we're serious about moving in that direction the proposal needs to be simple on paper, simple to implement, simple to change later if it doesn't work and like June said baby steps for now. Anything else and we simply recreate the problems that made it unwieldy in the first place.

There's a CSC meeting tomorrow night and candidates are invited so I'll have a chance to ask them directly.

Mike

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, November 28th, 2025 at 10:05 AM, Richard Fast <fastri...@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Apologies, I intended to submit specific language for my proposal, but was not able to get to that. Given the situation, I support what Joe has introduced. It's not exactly what I had in mind, but I think it would be an improvement on the status quo.

In Liberty,

Richard

[Mimi Robson]

I agree.  If we are going to do this, we better do it quickly.  The Bylaws Report has to be finished and voted on 70 days prior to the convention, and that date is December 6th (this Saturday).  Also, FYI, I am leaving on Friday for Dallas, and will be at the LNC meeting on Saturday, so the vote would really need to be before that.

Mimi

[June Genis]

I concur.  Have a safe trip and don't let the TSA get ya down 😁

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 12:47, Mimi Robson wrote:

I agree.  If we are going to do this, we better do it quickly.  The Bylaws Report has to be finished and voted on 70 days prior to the convention, and that date is December 6th (this Saturday).

 

Yes, I understand that.  That's why I have started writing actual language for some of the things I consider most important!  If others would like to start doing that too, for the things they consider important, please go ahead.  Meanwhile, if anybody sees any real problems with the language I have drafted so far, please say so.

 

But remember that we do not have to get everything completely perfect by this Friday. If we consider a particular topic important, we just need to offer some plausible version of language that would address it.  We are allowed to improve the language for our final report, as long as it is just a variation on what we proposed in the initial report.

[Starchild]

Mike,

I see the main benefit of having a Platform as communicating to the public what we believe and stand for. I want people who may not be Libertarian, or even very libertarian, but who are pro-freedom on a particular single issue, to be able to see that we are with them on that issue, and have something in writing that shows we understand it and have good, strong, specific language addressing it. I view the Platform not as a document to be read cover-to-cover in most cases, but as a kind of reference, searchable by keyword. “What do Libertarians think about issue X?” If people go looking for some issue in our Platform to learn what Libertarian position is on it, and find no reference to it – or worse, no Platform at all – that’s bad. If they find something intelligent and pro-freedom about the issue that matters to them, it may inspire them to join or support us.

We can and should issue Beacon posts, press releases, etc., that reference what our Platform says about various issues, so that there is synergy between our day-to-day communications that may be put out by a single person or small group, and the repository of what we officially stand for that has been adopted by our delegates at conventions, and that the former reflect the latter.

I think it’s natural and expected for political parties to have platforms, and that there is support for bringing ours back. Rather than trying to do it a plank at a time, I would rather see us use our previous Platform as a starting point and modify it to make it more California-specific.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

[Mike Van Roy]

Starchild,

A few years ago the 2021 delegates voted to end the state-specific platform. That required at least a 2/3 vote, so a significant majority of the delegates clearly wanted it gone. It seems extremely unlikely that delegate opinion has swung from 2/3 opposing it then to 2/3 favoring it now.

Because of that, I consider bringing this back at this time dilatory. Nor do I think it is appropriate to force the delegates to spend Valentine’s Day discussing it. A handful of hobbyists or gadflies on the losing side isn’t enough to convince me the delegate mood has changed.

I’m aware the rest of the committee disagrees with me, but I wanted to state my position clearly. I remain opposed.

—Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

I think a good way to effectuate this is to put a Platform Committee back into the Bylaws, as my proposal does, and let it start working on developing something. As Joe says, the delegates can always vote it down if they don’t think it’s good enough, and the discussion there might help us see a better way forward.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

(415) 573-7997

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Starchild]

Mike,

That convention where our Platform was deleted was when the Mises Caucus was ramping up, and had a lot of funding to bring people to the convention who were willing to vote the way their leaders advised. It was before the disastrous tenure of Adrian Malagon as California chair, and Angela McArdle as national chair, both of whom were among those leaders. Angela may still be involved in the party, but is no longer in California. I don’t know whether Adrian is still involved at all.

I could be wrong, but I think most of the longtime Libertarians, like Joe, Mimi, Richard and myself, want a Platform. I don’t think it’s dilatory, and we’re not “hobbyists” or “gadflies”, nor are we people who just like writing platforms. They have real purposes. Obviously ditching ours hasn’t done anything to move the LPC forward – our numbers have been down, not up. I honestly still don’t understand why any committed libertarians who aren’t trying to water down our message would think it’s a bad idea to have an official, standing document that clearly communicates what we believe. Maybe you can do a better job explaining to me what harm you think it does?

A platform doesn’t only help make outsiders aware of our positions more effectively than Beacon posts or press releases – the kind of documents that may be timely, but then quickly fade from sight and are often difficult to find later, and are often geared toward specific things in the news rather than the underlying principles of the libertarian positions. Discussing and debating platform planks helps improve our knowledge of the intellectual basis of libertarianism, and our ability to communicate libertarian ideas to members of the public. 

And what does Valentine’s Day have to do with it? We presumably won’t be having our conventions on that day every year. This year, in all likelihood, we would just be voting to approve some kind of framework to restore a platform, not spending hours on its specific planks. If a convention does fall on Valentine’s Day and we aren’t debating the Platform, there would almost certainly still be other non-Valentines-related convention business happening during those daytime hours.

I appreciate you honestly expressing your dissent, and want you to feel free to do so, but I also hope you’ll reconsider.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/CO93EZYctHbndi7Kjn-6pNsHZ-7Z-_23ZR5mCF2zMmF4Q7orZL68HSLvUKWi6GPzIfhURrUgx7-O5f0qjP81eXeX7Kz6Ywr5l2xBZN9nz8s%3D%40protonmail.com.