Possible Bylaw Proposals

[Mike Van Roy]

So here is my list of things I noticed looking through the current bylaws. If there is interest in turning these into proposals let me know.

Some of these ideas are substantive. Others are proposals for different wording or simply typos that need fixing that shouldn't be controversial. Since we're going to be voting on bylaws on Valentine's Day I don't suggest burdening the delegates with individual votes on each item. Instead I propose grouping the less substantive items into what's called a Consent Agenda. We would need buy-in from Loren and the Parliamentarian on this but the way it would work is someone makes a motion to consider, say, proposals 1-5, 8, 15 and 22 as a unit and the second motion would be to vote that entire unit up or down so we don't need to vote on each proposal individually.

My proposals:

• Remove the requirement for an in-person ExCom meeting
• Right now the Financial Standards Committee in the Operations Manual forbids the officers from serving on the committee, but only the officers. Other ExCom members and alternates could serve on it. Plus since it's in the Ops Manual and not the bylaws it could be suspended by the ExCom. Both defeat the intent of having a separation in the first place. My proposal would be to move that section to the bylaws and include all ExCom members, including alternates, from serving on the committee.
• Bylaw 3: Purpose: Change to "The Party exists to implement libertarian policy through political activities designed to win political office and implement policy AND (new word) to uphold, promote and,,," Right now it is a run-on sentence,
• Bylaw 10 Section 2: Change to "Notwithstanding any other language in these Bylaws , a county organization may enact a rule stating that a nonresident of such county must have been a member of such county organization for [removed wording] up to 90 days in length." Right now there is a lot of unnecessary wording. Alternatively we could leave it up to the counties to decide what is reasonable.
• Bylaw 11: Officers: Section 5: Currently reads: "The Secretary shall cause the minutes of each Executive Committee session and of each state convention to appear on the Party website..." There has to be better wording for this.
• Bylaw 11 Officers: Section 8: Currently reads: A member of the Executive Committee, including officers, that is not up for reelection at the current annual convention, may be removed from office by motion, without previous notice, with a 2/3 vote of the delegates present and voting or by the vote of a majority of all registered delegates, whichever is the greater number of votes." Pick one! The standard is either a majority or it is 2/3.
• Bylaw 12: Finance and Accounting. Section 6: Currently reads: "The Executive Committee shall cause an annual budget to be projected at it's final session of the fiscal year for ratification the following year." Again there has to be a better way to word this.
• Bylaw 13 Section 5: Currently reads "A two-thirds majority" - There is no such thing. It is either a majority (more than half) or it is 2/3. I assume 2/3 is what we want so let's get rid of "majority"
• Bylaw 13 Section 5 & 6: Currently reads "A two-thirds majority of the eligible positions on the Executive Committee shall be required to..." I'm not sure why we specify the position as the voter instead of the person in the position but it's confusing language that has gotten us in trouble in the past. We're the only organization I know of that describes it that way. In theory a mass exodus from the ExCom or simply not enough people elected to start with could result in the ExCom's inability to fill those positions since the number could fall below those required to vote new members in. So my proposal would be saying a decision needs to be 2/3 of ExCom members which is already pretty high.
• Bylaw 14: Operations Committee: As I said before I am in favor of getting rid of the Operations Committee. This would be in case that fails. 
• Section 1: Change to: "The Operations Committee shall consist of the Chair and the three other Officers."
• Section 3: Remove "The Operations Committee, may, by unanimous vote, approve any other action that would require a two-thirds vote of the Executive Committee." Despite having that extra comma this looks like an attempt to get around the ExCom by having a smaller vote requirement.
• Section 4: Remove "The Operations Committee may, by unanimous vote, fill any vacant Party officer or Operations Committee position on an interim basis until a session of the Executive Committee is held," The only time I could see this actually working is if we need an interim Secretary in which case the Chair could appoint that position with confirmation by the ExCom at the next ExCom meeting. Interim Treasurer doesn't make sense since that involves transferring bank accounts, QuickBooks access, etc. and these would have to be undone if the ExCom chooses someone else. 
• Bylaw 17: Committees: Section 1: Currently includes "No standing committee created by the Executive Committee" Standing committees are created by the Bylaws. The ExCom appoints the members of the committee. Or does this mean active committees?
• Bylaw 17: Committees: Section 2: Bylaws Committee: currently includes "shall cause it to be published" in two places. Again there has to be better wording for this.
• "Simple majority" mentioned in Bylaw 20; Convention Section 4 and Bylaw 22: Program Section 2. As we discussed at length this summer "simple majority" is a nonsense term.
• Bylaw 22: Program Section 3: Currently reads "If a delegate believes that an adopted plank is in conflict with the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party, or with the Statement of Principles or Platform of the Party" If the LPCA Statement of Principles is identical to the LNC Statement of Principles we don't need to mention it twice. This could change but LPCA also has no Platform right now.

Mike Van Roy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

[Mimi Robson]

Currently, there is a "consent" calendar included on the agenda for the convention (in the convention rules).  However, I don't believe it's ever been used for bylaws amendments because the consideration of amendments is specifically in the bylaws.  However, there is a provision in the convention rules that the bylaws committee can designate proposals as "no debate" items.

Rule 6: “No Debate” Items

The Bylaws Committee shall designate each of its proposals as either a regular item or a “No Debate” item. The “No Debate” classification shall be reserved for proposals which are technical in nature rather than substantive. Upon motion of five delegates, any proposal designated a “No Debate” item by either Committee shall be reclassified as a regular item. Except for items proposed for immediate implementation, no debate shall occur on a Committee’s proposals until the delegates vote on all of that Committee’s “No Debate” items.

BUT, I would suggest that we get rid of the following:

Bylaw 20: Convention

Section 7 Until one person from each side of a question has been given the opportunity to speak, any motion that ends debate on that question shall be out of order.

I say this because at the last convention I attempted to make a motion to suspend the rules to adopt a motion, and Aaron Starr said that the bylaw REQUIRES debate on every motion.  I don't believe he was correct (and have spoken to a couple of parliamentarians who agree with me) but I see no reason for this bylaw.  Roberts allows for things that don't need debate to not be debated, and if someone calls the question and there is an objection it requires a 2/3 vote to end debate, so if people want to speak on an item they will be able to without this requirement.

As far as the rest. . .I will need to look more closely, but I think given the time constraints on getting the report done that many proposals may be difficult.

I've attached the bylaws amendments that I wasn't able to propose at the last convention, that I had intended to send to the secretary with advance notice, but I think at least one of them addresses one of your points above.

Mimi

--
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/j9NBd4KJX_y9IN3UB0tpLi91jp7AANe5KUpiQCK_PgQJa2-ZLXmIQVBogfiwJZ885TgmPWfsMr8GTgCbrPTZZYUkYLZb7_1GhqQaxeMJB6g%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mike Van Roy]

Shoot, I was afraid of that. 

Oh well. I'll pair down my list. I won't bother with the "No Debate" items because, since we would still have to vote on them one at a time, it wouldn't be a timesaver anyway.

I actually think Bylaw 20 Section 7 is a good rule but Starr's application of it was way too strict. Perhaps Rule 6 should be moved to the Bylaws so Bylaw 20 Section 7 can't override it?

Will you be working on a proposal to get rid of the Operations Committee?

Mike

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 15:29, Mimi Robson wrote:

BUT, I would suggest that we get rid of the following:

Bylaw 20: Convention

Section 7 Until one person from each side of a question has been given the opportunity to speak, any motion that ends debate on that question shall be out of order.

I say this because at the last convention I attempted to make a motion to suspend the rules to adopt a motion, and Aaron Starr said that the bylaw REQUIRES debate on every motion.  I don't believe he was correct (and have spoken to a couple of parliamentarians who agree with me) but I see no reason for this bylaw.  Roberts allows for things that don't need debate to not be debated, and if someone calls the question and there is an objection it requires a 2/3 vote to end debate, so if people want to speak on an item they will be able to without this requirement.

 

These are not quite the same thing.  If somebody calls the question before anybody but the proponent has had a chance to say anything at all, the body might easily agree to it out of total ignorance that there is any actual issue worth debating.  There might actually be many delegates (fewer than 1/3, but dozens) who can already see a problem with it, and if one of them was given a moment to explain what the problem is very possibly more than 1/3 of the delegates would be interested in hearing more, but if nobody has a chance to say anything they will never have that opportunity. This provision in our bylaws is a safeguard against that.

 

I am not saying the way this is worded is perfect -- maybe there is some way to keep the protection while avoiding the issue that you encountered?

 

[Mimi Robson]

I think all it takes is someone shutting down debate once at a convention for people to explain how rude that is.  I personally don't like the bylaw, and thing there's a reason that Roberts lets people end debate quickly, so I will likely just put that amendment in with the ones I'm doing with advance notice.  What we can do after (if anyone wants to work with me on it) is come up with better language that can be an amendment to the motion at convention.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 14:14, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

 

• Remove the requirement for an in-person ExCom meeting

I don't know how delegates in general might feel about this, but I thought the way the recent meeting at least calls the necessity of this into question, so I think this is at least worth presenting to the delegates for their consideration. And it would be a pretty straightforward change:

Bylaw 13: Executive Committee
Section 3

The Executive Committee shall meet at such time and place as may be determined by action of the Executive Committee, by a call of the Chair, or by
written request of one-third or more of the members of the Executive Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executive Committee shall
hold at least one in-person session per year that shall not be within six weeks of an LPCA convention. The Secretary shall mail to each member of the Executive Committee, and to each county Chair, a notice of the time and place of each session, not less than fourteen days prior to such session. Sessions conducted electronically shall require seven days’ prior notice, unless all members of the Executive Committee attend the session and each expressly waives such notice at the beginning of the session.

[Mimi Robson]

I personally believe we should have at least one in person meeting a year (preferably two, one in the north and one in the south).  I believe that because I believe we get a lot more done at in person meetings, and also gives us the opportunity to schedule a fundraising event, or training at the same time.  

However, I would be fine voting to include an amendment on the report to present to the delegates and let them make their decision.  I would likely argue against it and vote against it, but I'm just one delegate.

Mimi

[Mimi Robson]

"Bylaw 11 Officers: Section 8: Currently reads: A member of the Executive Committee, including officers, that is not up for reelection at the current annual convention, may be removed from office by motion, without previous notice, with a 2/3 vote of the delegates present and voting or by the vote of a majority of all registered delegates, whichever is the greater number of votes." Pick one! The standard is either a majority or it is 2/3"

I wrote this bylaw very purposefully to include both.  The reason is that it can make a huge difference.  For instance, what could happen is that people try to get rid of someone late in the day after many of the delegates have left.  For instance, let's say we had 100 delegates and the quorum is 51 delegates; at the end of the day there are only 51 delegates present (which is quorum), what could happen if we just said "by a 2/3 vote" the motion could pass with only 34 votes in favor.  By stating it is whichever is greater the motion would need 51 votes in favor in that case and would fail.

Therefore I am strongly against changing this because it's for sure a distinction with a difference.

Mimi

[Mimi Robson]

By the way, that particular wording is pretty standard in RONR for things like bylaws amendments.  It gives the either/or with the provision that it would need to be whichever is the great number of votes required to pass.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 14:14, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

• Right now the Financial Standards Committee in the Operations Manual forbids the officers from serving on the committee, but only the officers. Other ExCom members and alternates could serve on it. Plus since it's in the Ops Manual and not the bylaws it could be suspended by the ExCom. Both defeat the intent of having a separation in the first place. My proposal would be to move that section to the bylaws and include all ExCom members, including alternates, from serving on the committee.

I think moving the prohibition of officers into the bylaws would make sense, for the reason you give.  I do not agree that this prohibition should be extended to the rest of the EC.  EC members in general do not have the power to mess around with money or the accounting thereof -- unlike officers, especially the Chair and the Treasurer. But they do bring a perspective to this function that somebody totally outside the EC would not have, and without which some real problems might be more easily missed. Distinguishing between officers and others in this context would be consistent with typical corporate practice of having certain committees filled by independent directors, in contrast to ones who are employees of the corporation.

My draft wording:

 

Bylaw 12: Finances
Section 7
The Executive Committee shall select a Financial Standards Committee of at least three members, not including any Party Officers, during the first three months after a convention. The Financial Standards Committee shall review the financial records and processes of the Party and report its findings at each subsequent Executive Committee session and at the next state convention

 

[Mike Van Roy]

I decided not to include this one.

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

Good point. I'l revise it tonight.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mimi Robson]

I agree Joe, and was going to make the same suggestion.  I support this amendment 100%.

[June Genis]

The main reason we get more done at an in person meeting and have time for training is that they are longer than our usual monthly meetings, There is nothing to prevent our scheduling special longer online meetings or special online meetings just for training.

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/CAD2vyrRuV6YiZG3YAPD_YbLZHD4sSuEeBZssH1aAeyyN9%3DtOyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mimi Robson]

I personally don't think it's just the amount of time, but the fact that when people meet face to face there is better discussion. And I don't think that virtual fundraisers are particularly fruitful ;-)

But again, this is just my opinion. . .

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-02 15:16, Mimi Robson wrote:

I personally don't think it's just the amount of time, but the fact that when people meet face to face there is better discussion. And I don't think that virtual fundraisers are particularly fruitful ;-)

 

 

I don't object to the idea of having in-person meetings. I attended many in-person state EC meetings decades ago that required travel, and also was on the LNC for many years and that involved traveling to meetings all across the country.  I agree that they can serve a useful purpose.  However, just having a meeting similar in length and format to what could have been accomplished via Zoom (now that Zoom is available) just to satisfy some arbitrary requirement is, in my view, silly and wasteful.  It's a waste of money, a waste of the committee members' time, and may make it difficult for some committee members to participate at all.  It also creates an issue with "transparency" -- people have grown accustomed to being able to watch the Zoom meetings remotely, and then suddenly a meeting of essentially the same type comes along where they cannot, for no obvious reason.

 

If we are going to have one or more in-person meetings during the year I would much prefer they be different in some other way too -- longer, definitely, possibly even with a two-day agenda. This is a very large state, and traveling from one end to the other just to meet for six or seven hours means a very high proportion of the time is "overhead". And to the extent people want "trainings" or other presentations, fundraisers, etc., those can also be reasons for people to spend the time and money to get there.  (But personally I would not want to travel from Sunnyvale to San Diego if the only other activity was going to be somebody giving a Power Point presentation -- those can also be done well enough over the Internet.)

 

We might also want to consider scheduling other types of weekend-long events, in addition to our business convention, for other purposes -- "conferences" or candidate training programs, or something else of interest to the wider membership -- and if we held an in-person EC meeting as part of such an event, at the same location, that would be a way to make the travel-related costs -- both monetary and time -- more sensible.  But I don't see how to build that association into a bylaws provision. So I think it would be better to drop the requirement and let the EC schedule in-person meetings or not to take advantage of whatever else may be going on during any particular part of the year.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 14:14, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

• Bylaw 22: Program Section 3: Currently reads "If a delegate believes that an adopted plank is in conflict with the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party, or with the Statement of Principles or Platform of the Party" If the LPCA Statement of Principles is identical to the LNC Statement of Principles we don't need to mention it twice. This could change but LPCA also has no Platform right now.

Thank you for bringing up this section.  It's actually much worse than the specific language elements that you highlighted -- the whole thing makes no sense at all, given how the Program is now defined to work. This section looks like it was just carried forward from an earlier time when the Program planks were supposed to be adopted by the convention. Since they are now adopted by the Executive Committee, and that can be at any time during the year, anything relating to any appeal to the Judicial Committee needs to be consistent with that. This should have been fixed years ago.

But note that the part about consistency with the "Platform" still makes sense, because we do have a Platform.  It just happens, currently, that it is the same as the national Platform, but that might change, and the same principle would apply in either case.

My draft revision:

Bylaw 22: Program
Section 3

If a delegate believes any three members of the Executive Committee or any twenty State Central Committee Members believe that an adopted plank is in conflict with the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party, or with the Statement of Principles or Platform of the Party, then the delegate they may challenge that plank in writing to the Judicial Committee. The challenger They shall specify in the challenge the manner in which the delegate believes they believe the plank is in conflict. The Judicial Committee shall decide whether the plank in question conforms to the respective Statement of Principles or Platform and make a report stating the justification of its decision to the floor of the convention Executive Committee and the membership. If the plank is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it will be declared null and void; but the plank may be reinstated in the Program by a three-fourths four-fifths vote of the convention Executive Committee.

[Mike Van Roy]

This goes back years, maybe decades, but the Areas used to put on Area trainings or mini-conventions. I could see an in-person ExCom meeting in conjunction with one of those. In fact there's money in the state budget for it.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-01 14:14, 'Mike Van Roy' via LPCalifornia Bylaws Committee Discussion wrote:

So here is my list of things I noticed looking through the current bylaws. If there is interest in turning these into proposals let me know.

 

Some of these ideas are substantive. Others are proposals for different wording or simply typos that need fixing that shouldn't be controversial.

 

 

I did read through all of your suggestions, even though I only wrote up proposals relating to a few of them. I agree that dumping a large pile of proposals on the delegates would not be a good idea, so I think we should skip, for this year, making any proposals the purpose of which is only to make wording consistent or even to make it more clear -- unless the existing wording is actually causing a significant problem with people understanding what it means,

 

• Bylaw 3: Purpose: Change to "The Party exists to implement libertarian policy through political activities designed to win political office and implement policy AND (new word) to uphold, promote and,,," Right now it is a run-on sentence,

This wording was a contentious issue in the past - not worth re-opening just to address an issue of style.

• Bylaw 10 Section 2: Change to "Notwithstanding any other language in these Bylaws , a county organization may enact a rule stating that a nonresident of such county must have been a member of such county organization for [removed wording] up to 90 days in length." Right now there is a lot of unnecessary wording. Alternatively we could leave it up to the counties to decide what is reasonable.

This was a compromise, to address an actual controversy -- let's not mess with it unless we are sure we have something better on which we expect there to be wide agreement.

• Bylaw 11: Officers: Section 5: Currently reads: "The Secretary shall cause the minutes of each Executive Committee session and of each state convention to appear on the Party website..." There has to be better wording for this.

Maybe, but not worth trying to fix if it's not really causing a problem.

• Bylaw 11 Officers: Section 8: Currently reads: A member of the Executive Committee, including officers, that is not up for reelection at the current annual convention, may be removed from office by motion, without previous notice, with a 2/3 vote of the delegates present and voting or by the vote of a majority of all registered delegates, whichever is the greater number of votes." Pick one! The standard is either a majority or it is 2/3.

As Mimi has already explained, there is good reason for the two fractions.

Bylaw 12: Finance and Accounting. Section 6: Currently reads: "The Executive Committee shall cause an annual budget to be projected at it's final session of the fiscal year for ratification the following year." Again there has to be a better way to word this.

Maybe, but not worth trying to fix if it's not really causing a problem.

• Bylaw 13 Section 5: Currently reads "A two-thirds majority" - There is no such thing. It is either a majority (more than half) or it is 2/3. I assume 2/3 is what we want so let's get rid of "majority"

Everybody knows what it means, so there is no actual need to fix it.  Maybe at some future convention we can go through and make all of these changes at once, but there are more important things to work on (for us to work on, and for the delegates to work on) this year.

• Bylaw 13 Section 5 & 6: Currently reads "A two-thirds majority of the eligible positions on the Executive Committee shall be required to..." I'm not sure why we specify the position as the voter instead of the person in the position but it's confusing language that has gotten us in trouble in the past. We're the only organization I know of that describes it that way. In theory a mass exodus from the ExCom or simply not enough people elected to start with could result in the ExCom's inability to fill those positions since the number could fall below those required to vote new members in. So my proposal would be saying a decision needs to be 2/3 of ExCom members which is already pretty high.

This is intentional, to make it hard to do certain things.  Whether it is too hard is certainly something that could be debated, but is that how we want the delegates to be spending their time, at this convention?  Part of our job is to filter ideas, to figure out which things are worth spending time on.

• Bylaw 14: Operations Committee: As I said before I am in favor of getting rid of the Operations Committee. This would be in case that fails. 
  • Section 1: Change to: "The Operations Committee shall consist of the Chair and the three other Officers."
  • Section 3: Remove "The Operations Committee, may, by unanimous vote, approve any other action that would require a two-thirds vote of the Executive Committee." Despite having that extra comma this looks like an attempt to get around the ExCom by having a smaller vote requirement.
  • Section 4: Remove "The Operations Committee may, by unanimous vote, fill any vacant Party officer or Operations Committee position on an interim basis until a session of the Executive Committee is held," The only time I could see this actually working is if we need an interim Secretary in which case the Chair could appoint that position with confirmation by the ExCom at the next ExCom meeting. Interim Treasurer doesn't make sense since that involves transferring bank accounts, QuickBooks access, etc. and these would have to be undone if the ExCom chooses someone else.

•  

This is a topic that I do think might be worth debating at this convention.  What did you think of my suggestion of a way to deal with it?

• Bylaw 17: Committees: Section 1: Currently includes "No standing committee created by the Executive Committee" Standing committees are created by the Bylaws. The ExCom appoints the members of the committee. Or does this mean active committees?

No, whether a committee is "standing" or not has a different meaning, not dependent on who creates it, or whether it is actually doing anything.

• Bylaw 17: Committees: Section 2: Bylaws Committee: currently includes "shall cause it to be published" in two places. Again there has to be better wording for this.

Not worth trying to fix this year.  If you do have a suggestion for something that would sound nicer but still captures the intended meaning, let's consider that for all such cases in some future year.  I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

• "Simple majority" mentioned in Bylaw 20; Convention Section 4 and Bylaw 22: Program Section 2. As we discussed at length this summer "simple majority" is a nonsense term.

I don't agree that this is a "nonsense term".  It may not be a technical term, but the meaning is clear to everybody who understands ordinary English, whose vocabulary is not limited to what appears in the text of Robert's Rules.  The word "simple" is technically redundant but in some contexts may make the structure of a rule easier to understand, if the preceding paragraph or whatever specifies some higher vote requirement, as common, non-technical language to emphasize the distinction.

 

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-02 16:18, Mike Van Roy wrote:

This goes back years, maybe decades, but the Areas used to put on Area trainings or mini-conventions. I could see an in-person ExCom meeting in conjunction with one of those. In fact there's money in the state budget for it.

 

Yes, there have been things like that throughout the party's history.  Not really a regular feature, never scheduled consistently over a span of years, but it's a general idea that has come up repeatedly from time to time. And to the degree any of the Area Coordinators want to organize anything like that in future years, I think it would make sense for them to propose to the EC that weekend as an occasion for an in-person meeting.

[Mike Van Roy]

You should take the lead on this one. Like I said I'm not a veteran of the Great Platform Wars. I just noticed the Department of Redundancy Department language.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

Can you send what you wrote about the Operations Committee again? There's a lot of emails back and forth so I might have missed it.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mimi Robson]

Joe,

Bylaw 12: Finance and Accounting. Section 6: Currently reads: "The Executive Committee shall cause an annual budget to be projected at it's final session of the fiscal year for ratification the following year." Again there has to be a better way to word this.

Joe, you wrote, "Maybe, but not worth trying to fix if it's not really causing a problem."

I sent a previous email, but I am suggesting an amendment to this bylaw as well (below).  My amendment actually does other things, but in the process fixes the part Mike is  talking about.  This bylaw was originally written when our fiscal year started in February (which I never understood, except maybe that's when our convention was?).  In 2017 we changed our fiscal year to be January 1 through December 31 so there is no longer a reason for the ExCom to "project" a budget for the next year.  The ExCom now approves the budget at the December meeting.

Bylaw 12: Finance and Accounting

Section 2

The Treasurer may authorize expenditures for any item incorporated into the proposed budget until the Executive Committee has ratified the budget for the current year.

Section 3 2

The Executive Committee shall not enter into any contract lasting more than three months, incur any expense in a non-budgeted category, or incur any expense in a budgeted category greater than the amount budgeted by more than $1,000 without a two-thirds vote of the entire eligible positions on the Executive Committee. Anyone who incurs such financial liability without such approval shall be held personally liable.

Section 6 5

The Executive Committee shall cause an annual budget to be projected ratified with a two-thirds vote of all eligible positions on the executive committee at its final meeting of the fiscal year for ratification implementation the following year.

Bylaw 13: Executive Committee

Section 5

A two-thirds majority of the eligible positions on the Executive Committee shall be required to pass the following:

D.    The annual budget, or any financial liability, or contractual obligation lasting more than three months.

As far as the idea of getting rid of the OpsCom, I would be willing to write something up, but I just say Joe said he did as well, and I think I missed it.  Joe can you point me to that?

I've attached the rest of the amendments I submitted last year that we didn't get to at the convention.  There were actually more, but these are the only ones I would like to revisit.  If the Committee would like to sign on to any of them and put them in the committee report I am good with that.  If the committee doesn't want to, I'm going to submit them anyway.

Mimi

--
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/HrMDaOaf2izNa8WPrImFjc1MHO0iSJovKPUA13zixxDjJSlwpceHK9Bq57aDuaEpDYOgd650VaSNJkEY4W203oj6B-ciqhkD0KD_rhKTYaI%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Mimi Robson]

WOW. . .I am surprised that this wasn't changed previously, considering it's been many years since the program was adopted by the delegates at convention.  As far as your amendment, I think it's good, but I don't know why there needs to be multiple people that think it's in conflict with the SoP.  Currently a single member can appeal to the JC, so I don't find it necessary to make it 20.  Also, being the ExCom is really responsible for the planks in the Program, I don't know why it would be said that 3 ExCom members could take it to the JC.  I think it could simply change "if a delegate. . ." to "If a central committee member. . ."

[Mike Van Roy]

I agree. There shouldn't be an "if X number of people agree" requirement. It's the JC's decision. If one person makes a convincing enough case to them that they need to take action that should be enough.

BTW the meeting I went to tonight was Pat Wright, Brandon Jackson and myself. No actual candidates were there so I didn't get to ask what they thought of platform vs program. 

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/CAD2vyrR9-uWRLO%2B%2BEKKJ%2B-Qzn-tJ4DA_nstcPFDBKgxNzn0sXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Van Roy]

One change I would make, more grammatical than substance but we might as make it now:

"Section 6 5

The Executive Committee shall cause an annual budget to be projected ratified with a two-thirds vote of all eligible positions on the executive committee at its final meeting of the fiscal year for ratification implementation the following year."

Instead of "shall cause an annual budget to be ratified" we could simply say "shall ratify an annual budget"

I missed Joe's comments on the Operations Committee too. I don't think we heard from Starchild yet but it sounds like the rest of us think *something* should change.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

Hit send too soon.

I'm not going to propose taking up "ExCom positions" vs "ExCom members" this year because, as Joe said, it's not an immediate problem and there's better debates to have. It would probably be 3-1 anyway.

With that the only remaining proposals I have in mind deal with the Ops Committee. Those will take a while so I won't get to them tonight.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

-------- Original Message --------
On Tuesday, 12/02/25 at 19:22 Mimi Robson <hmro...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-02 19:43, Mimi Robson wrote:

WOW. . .I am surprised that this wasn't changed previously, considering it's been many years since the program was adopted by the delegates at convention.  As far as your amendment, I think it's good, but I don't know why there needs to be multiple people that think it's in conflict with the SoP.  Currently a single member can appeal to the JC, so I don't find it necessary to make it 20.  Also, being the ExCom is really responsible for the planks in the Program, I don't know why it would be said that 3 ExCom members could take it to the JC.  I think it could simply change "if a delegate. . ." to "If a central committee member. . ."

 

 

The point of such a requirement is basically to protect the Judicial Committee from having to deal with frivolous appeals. This is the sort of question on which there can very easily be disagreement. For almost every statement about public policy there will be some LP member  who thinks it is somehow wrong.  But we don't want the JC to be used as a primary mechanism for dealing with that. We are primarily relying here, with respect to the Program, on the idea that a 2/3 vote of the EC will get it right most of the time, and it would be a waste of everybody's time if the JC had to get involved every time one person just didn't like the exact wording or something. But if enough people agree there is a problem, then it's reasonable to have another committee take a look at the situation.a  So the idea here is that the JC really should look at it, in the case of a controversy of this nature, because we consider the Statement of Principles much more important than any ordinary question of procedure, management, etc.

 

[Joe Dehn]

Sorry -- I missed this one in making my compilation. I have added it now (with one grammatical/stylistic change based on Mike's comment).

[Mike Van Roy]

I get that we don't want the JC to deal with frivolous issues.

But if an issue really is frivolous then they should be able to recognize that quickly and deal with it appropriately. 

Or they can set their own metrics for the point that they start to take notice of a brewing issue. I don't think we need to decide that for them.

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/f8932b0a1ef18c48059b729e185bbaf3%40dehnbase.org.

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-03 07:57, Joe Dehn wrote:

On 2025-12-02 19:43, Mimi Robson wrote:

WOW. . .I am surprised that this wasn't changed previously, considering it's been many years since the program was adopted by the delegates at convention.  As far as your amendment, I think it's good, but I don't know why there needs to be multiple people that think it's in conflict with the SoP.  Currently a single member can appeal to the JC, so I don't find it necessary to make it 20.  Also, being the ExCom is really responsible for the planks in the Program, I don't know why it would be said that 3 ExCom members could take it to the JC.  I think it could simply change "if a delegate. . ." to "If a central committee member. . ."

 

 

The point of such a requirement is basically to protect the Judicial Committee from having to deal with frivolous appeals. This is the sort of question on which there can very easily be disagreement. For almost every statement about public policy there will be some LP member  who thinks it is somehow wrong.  But we don't want the JC to be used as a primary mechanism for dealing with that. We are primarily relying here, with respect to the Program, on the idea that a 2/3 vote of the EC will get it right most of the time, and it would be a waste of everybody's time if the JC had to get involved every time one person just didn't like the exact wording or something. But if enough people agree there is a problem, then it's reasonable to have another committee take a look at the situation.a  So the idea here is that the JC really should look at it, in the case of a controversy of this nature, because we consider the Statement of Principles much more important than any ordinary question of procedure, management, etc.

 

 

And the reason I included a separate number for the EC is that the initial decision is being made by the EC.  It wouldn't make sense to require 10 EC members for an appeal -- if more than 5 didn't think it was consistent with the SoP they could have just blocked it by voting against it. But I wouldn't want the JC to have to get involved every time just one EC member objected. Three seemed a reasonable compromise.

[Mimi Robson]

I still don't see it Joe.  Is it me?

Mike, I am putting together something for the removal of the OpsCom, but noticed that you were more looking at changing it around (not getting rid of it).  In your first point, if we still have an OpsCom I would be opposed to having it only be the four officers. . .a committee really needs to be an odd number of members in case of a tie.

Mimi

[Mike Van Roy]

My goal is to get rid of it.

But I was also looking at ways to contain it should getting rid of it not pass.

A tie vote doesn't mean no decision. It doesn't mean you're in perpetual limbo until the tie is broken. It means the motion didn't pass because it didn't get a majority. That's the decision.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Joe Dehn]

On 2025-12-03 08:30, Joe Dehn wrote:

On 2025-12-03 07:57, Joe Dehn wrote:

On 2025-12-02 19:43, Mimi Robson wrote:

WOW. . .I am surprised that this wasn't changed previously, considering it's been many years since the program was adopted by the delegates at convention.  As far as your amendment, I think it's good, but I don't know why there needs to be multiple people that think it's in conflict with the SoP.  Currently a single member can appeal to the JC, so I don't find it necessary to make it 20.  Also, being the ExCom is really responsible for the planks in the Program, I don't know why it would be said that 3 ExCom members could take it to the JC.  I think it could simply change "if a delegate. . ." to "If a central committee member. . ."

 

 

The point of such a requirement is basically to protect the Judicial Committee from having to deal with frivolous appeals. This is the sort of question on which there can very easily be disagreement. For almost every statement about public policy there will be some LP member  who thinks it is somehow wrong.  But we don't want the JC to be used as a primary mechanism for dealing with that. We are primarily relying here, with respect to the Program, on the idea that a 2/3 vote of the EC will get it right most of the time, and it would be a waste of everybody's time if the JC had to get involved every time one person just didn't like the exact wording or something. But if enough people agree there is a problem, then it's reasonable to have another committee take a look at the situation.a  So the idea here is that the JC really should look at it, in the case of a controversy of this nature, because we consider the Statement of Principles much more important than any ordinary question of procedure, management, etc.

 

 

And the reason I included a separate number for the EC is that the initial decision is being made by the EC.  It wouldn't make sense to require 10 EC members for an appeal -- if more than 5 didn't think it was consistent with the SoP they could have just blocked it by voting against it. But I wouldn't want the JC to have to get involved every time just one EC member objected. Three seemed a reasonable compromise.

 

 

After discussing this with Mimi, I have changed the draft so that an appeal can be made by just any three central committee members. My main concern was that the JC not be stuck having to respond over and over again to somebody who just feels he must challenge everything on the basis of some obscure interpretation of the SoP that nobody else recognizes.  But requiring three probably addresses that kind of problem almost as well as requiring a larger number.  And since EC members are all CC members, that serves the same function as a separate requirement of 3 EC members, for dealing with cases where there is a factional (philosophical faction) bias within the EC.

I do think including some number in what we present to the delegates is useful. The delegates may want more, they may think just one should be sufficient. But it will be very easy for them to cut the requirement down to one if they want that, harder to add a multi-person requirement if there is nothing like that in the proposal.  This language will make it very easy for them to adjust it in either direction.

[Starchild]

This reminds me, I think we should end the practice of allowing people to speak in debate on an item and then, while still at the microphone, end debate by calling the question. 

Someone should only be able to do one or the other, not both.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

LPC Bylaws Committee member

(415) 573-7997

On Dec 2, 2025, at 2:05 PM, Mimi Robson <hmro...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think all it takes is someone shutting down debate once at a convention for people to explain how rude that is.  I personally don't like the bylaw, and thing there's a reason that Roberts lets people end debate quickly, so I will likely just put that amendment in with the ones I'm doing with advance notice.  What we can do after (if anyone wants to work with me on it) is come up with better language that can be an amendment to the motion at convention.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:01 PM Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:

On 2025-12-01 15:29, Mimi Robson wrote:

BUT, I would suggest that we get rid of the following:

Bylaw 20: Convention

Section 7 Until one person from each side of a question has been given the opportunity to speak, any motion that ends debate on that question shall be out of order.

I say this because at the last convention I attempted to make a motion to suspend the rules to adopt a motion, and Aaron Starr said that the bylaw REQUIRES debate on every motion.  I don't believe he was correct (and have spoken to a couple of parliamentarians who agree with me) but I see no reason for this bylaw.  Roberts allows for things that don't need debate to not be debated, and if someone calls the question and there is an objection it requires a 2/3 vote to end debate, so if people want to speak on an item they will be able to without this requirement.

 

These are not quite the same thing.  If somebody calls the question before anybody but the proponent has had a chance to say anything at all, the body might easily agree to it out of total ignorance that there is any actual issue worth debating.  There might actually be many delegates (fewer than 1/3, but dozens) who can already see a problem with it, and if one of them was given a moment to explain what the problem is very possibly more than 1/3 of the delegates would be interested in hearing more, but if nobody has a chance to say anything they will never have that opportunity. This provision in our bylaws is a safeguard against that.

 

I am not saying the way this is worded is perfect -- maybe there is some way to keep the protection while avoiding the issue that you encountered?

 

--
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/CAD2vyrSbcHT-untyKCT6SE3HOthNCjfZnUuwydBcL2rkGGkPZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

I concur Mike. The “if X number of people agree” provision seems like an unnecessary hurdle. Just let the Judicial Committee decide if anyone raises the issue with them.

Thanks for the info on the Candidate Support Committee meeting. Was anything of note discussed or voted on?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-bylaws-discuss/Q4LkuB3buudYe_Jp7o_zEvoIY4dEAs3mdsxoa5h_z4o_dKwbdahU-jltvXvgdFltzI8p0q4R9FQIzIsimRA5qJ7b8G24sumfp2EpP97dYzc%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Starchild]

It sounded to me like Mike was suggesting that the Judicial Committee could just decline to hear the case, without having to spend a lot of time on it. That was the basis for my agreement. But maybe that isn’t allowed?

A possible compromise would be to have the rules allow just one person to bring it to them, but then they could have the option of simply declining review. However if 3 Executive Committee members or 20 party members bring an appeal, then they would be required to hear the case and issue a formal ruling.

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/33599c2b8cafc2c7462ad53400c42ced%40dehnbase.org.

[Mike Van Roy]

On the CSC meeting - not really. None of the candidates showed so it was Pat Wright, Brandon Jackson and myself talking to ourselves. An idea we had was to run candidates for the Board of Equalization which sounds like it has potential but we need candidates to do it.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Mike Van Roy]

I'm saying the Judicial Committee's members are publicly available. They're easy to contact. Someone who has an issue can take the issue to them and if a JC member thinks it's important to take up then they can be an advocate for it.

Maybe that process needs to be formalized and maybe the Judicial Committee should take the lead on that or maybe it already exisrs but that's how I see it happening.

Mike

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

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

[Starchild]

This makes sense to me.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))