Caryn Ann Harlos: ‘The Parliamentary Gordian Knot that the LP Faces’

By Caryn Ann Harlos, originally posted on steemit:

the-gordian-knot.jpg

At the last Libertarian Party Convention, business was adjourned before a Judicial Committee was elected. There are about a million ways to last Sunday that I can describe the many points of failure, but here we are. There is no Judicial Committee, and the LNC is deciding what to do.

The Judicial Committee serves as the protector of the Statement of Principles and as the last refuge against an errant LNC. Which is why the LNC is to have no say in its appointment. Yet that is precisely what the LNC is now doing for the sake of expediency. And expediency can be very costly.

So it appears the LNC will decide to "recognize" the top seven vote getters (or if you look at it this way – the first seven who were disapproved by a majority of the delegates). It has zero authority to do that. So let’s say this illegitimate Judicial Committee makes a horrendous call. Well, I (or you or anyone else) as a member do not have to accept that — and things can escalate quickly. What if another Oregon-type situation happens?

The LNC needs to stop. Expediency doesn’t model our principles. There is one way out of this that honours the spirit of our Bylaws and that is to send a mail ballot to the delegates that were present at adjournment. Let them decide. Show that we don’t put aside protections for expediency.

58 thoughts on “Caryn Ann Harlos: ‘The Parliamentary Gordian Knot that the LP Faces’

  1. Steven R Linnabary

    Didn’t one of the members of the last Judicial Cmte (Alicia Dearn) leave the LP for a new party?

  2. Thomas Knapp

    Steven,

    No, Alicia Dearn didn’t leave the LP for a new party. She took a job as general counsel for a new party and for that reason withdrew as a candidate for chair of, and a delegate to the national convention of, the LP.

  3. Seebeck

    Phillies:

    There is a historical precedent. The last Judicial Committee continues until it is replaced.

    The LP Bylaws:
    ARTICLE 8: JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
    1. The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular
    Convention, and any five members shall constitute a quorum. No member of the National
    Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee. The members of the Judicial Committee
    shall select the Chair of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee shall take office
    immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the
    final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.

    The historical precedent is to violate the Bylaws?

    Nope.

  4. Shawn L.

    Related: We’ll have to dispose of approval voting, as it is currently implemented in the bylaws, for LNC At-Large and Judicial Committee.

    The switch was made at the Columbus 2014 convention, without a proviso to put it off until the next convention. That made any difficulties attributable to the sudden switch. But, in 2016 only two or three LNC at-large candidates got through, and not many more judicial committee seats were filled.

    The LNC actually isn’t the big problem, as the LNC can appoint people to fill the vacancies (as they did in 2016 by offering the seats to the next highest vote winners in the process, although one did decline). The Judicial Committee has the right to fill vacancies, though, if memory serves the JC declined to do so in 2016. But that requires there to BE a JC to do that.

    The precedent that Phillies was talking of (I presume) was the 2000 convention that found itself without a quorum at the time of the judicial committee elections. Mercifully, that JC never had to meet, so that really never got challenged.

    If we wait until the next convention to seat a new JC, we’ll have to probably have to do a little bylaws changes to ensure that JC terms end/begin at non-presidential conventions, (the new language only states a 4 year term). We could use a rule to allow a prior JC to stay on if no JC members are elected at a convention, and maybe some other rules to deal with JC exhaustion. (A rule mandating JC vacancies to be filled by the JC, or at least up to a minimum membership level, would be good as well)

  5. Seebeck

    Shawn L:

    >The LNC actually isn’t the big problem, as the LNC can appoint people to fill the vacancies (as they did in 2016 by offering the seats to the next highest vote winners in the process, although one did decline).

    Actually, that violates the Bylaws. The LNC has no authority to appoint JC members. Besides, that is a huge conflict of interest.

    >If we wait until the next convention to seat a new JC, we’ll have to probably have to do a little bylaws changes to ensure that JC terms end/begin at non-presidential conventions, (the new language only states a 4 year term).

    Not true. Proposal I, which passed, specified “Non-Presidential” conventions and the 4-year term was implied from it:

    1. The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular Non-
    Presidential Convention, and any five members shall constitute a quorum. No member of the National Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee. The members of the Judicial Committee shall select the Chair of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Non-Presidential Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Non-Presidential Convention. All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection. The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Non-Presidential Convention.

    RULE 1: ORDER OF BUSINESS
    The standing order of business for a Regular Convention shall be as follows:
    […]
    10. Election of Judicial Committee (in appropriate years)
    11. Resolutions
    12. Other business

    >We could use a rule to allow a prior JC to stay on if no JC members are elected at a convention,

    That would require a Bylaws change.

    >(A rule mandating JC vacancies to be filled by the JC, or at least up to a minimum membership level, would be good as well)

    That’s already there (see above), but they have to have a quorum (of 5/7) to do that now, which ties hands.

  6. Seebeck

    It appears that the “underline” HTML tag isn’t working. In the post above, Proposal I added “Non-Presdiential” to the Bylaw in all places it appears, and “(in appropriate years)” to the Rule.

  7. Shawn L.

    “Actually, that violates the Bylaws. The LNC has no authority to appoint JC members. Besides, that is a huge conflict of interest.”

    Pardon the miscommunication, I wasn’t trying to imply that the LNC can appoint JC members, but that the LNC can appoint LNC members when vacancies occur in At-Large seats there.

    Hence the the problems we’ve had with approval voting aren’t as much of a problem on the LNC side of things as they are on the JC side.

    ” ‘We could use a rule to allow a prior JC to stay on if no JC members are elected at a convention,’

    That would require a Bylaws change.”

    Agreed. I was proposing a bylaws change, which can’t happen until the next convention. Most of what I was talking about was not about getting a JC out of the present situation, but repairing the process for the future.

  8. Shawn Levasseur

    “>(A rule mandating JC vacancies to be filled by the JC, or at least up to a minimum membership level, would be good as well)

    That’s already there (see above), but they have to have a quorum (of 5/7) to do that now, which ties hands.”

    Wow. so, effectively we didn’t have a JC these past two years either as only 3 were elected and a quorum was impossible under the bylaws. (A simple repair to that bylaw should read that a greater than 2/3rds of the JC membership should be a quorum)

  9. Seebeck

    Shawn’s analysis is correct, and no worries about miscommunication.

    For George, just because the Bylaws were violated before, doesn’t mean they can be violated again.

    Moving the JC elections up does help solve the problem in the long haul, but there is still a need to guarantee that a JC quorum at the least is elected. Right now as the Bylaws are worded, and as we have seen, it is very possible that could not be the case. That needs fixing.

  10. George Phillies

    Of course it means they can be found inapplicable again. A situation has arisen that was not envisioned, not at all, by the authors of the bylaws. Following the letter of the bylaws is now possibly stupid.

    “You need a majority” is the line that caused the Oregon problem.

    There are a few alternatives here:
    1) Have no Judicial Committee for the term.
    2) Continue with the old Judicial Committee until a new one is found.
    3) Elect a new Judicial Committee via mail or email ballot of delegates who were at the convention during the original vote.
    4) Agree that the people who got the most votes are elected.
    5) Generate sane bylaws for dealing with this issue. Eliminating the tellers recounting the ballots might speed things up a great deal.

  11. Libertydave

    So it appears that national finds itself in a similar position that Oregon was in.

    lmao

  12. paulie Post author

    Not quite, but it’s a mess. On the other hand – will miracles ever cease – Oregon appears to be resolved at this time, so there’s hope for national yet.

  13. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Ms. H writes: ” There are about a million ways to last Sunday that I can describe the many points of failure, but here we are. ”

    There really is just one reason: Neither the chair, secretary or other officers (or anyone on the floor) remembered to tell the body that the elections for Judicial committee had not been held when there was a call for adjournment). Obviously a bunch of other issues led to that point, but that’s where the issue should have been resolved.

    George quoted bylaws: “The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.”

    Well, the next convention adjourned, without a judicial committee. So everyone be good til 2020.

  14. Seebeck

    Phillies:

    >There are a few alternatives here:
    >1) Have no Judicial Committee for the term.

    That’s the worst of all worlds, because then there is no check on the LNC.

    >2) Continue with the old Judicial Committee until a new one is found.

    That cannot be done per the Bylaws.

    >3) Elect a new Judicial Committee via mail or email ballot of delegates who were at the convention during the original vote.

    That is a possible alternative that has been suggested. It would be costly, but worth the expense.

    >4) Agree that the people who got the most votes are elected.

    That requires a Bylaws change, and the Rules cannot be suspended because the convention is adjourned.

    >5) Generate sane bylaws for dealing with this issue. Eliminating the tellers recounting the ballots might speed things up a great deal.

    The tellers, an M Carling creation, have been a problem since their fiasco of a debut in STL in 2010, when as whip I took the CA delegation and led the charge to ignore those Lithunianian Lilliputian minions and get the job done cleanly. Moving the elections up will help, but so will a better voting system, and that requires a Bylaws change.

    It’s being worked on. Question is, will anyone listen to the solutions?

  15. Seebeck

    Moore:

    >George quoted bylaws: “The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.”

    That was me, not Phillies.

    >Well, the next convention adjourned, without a judicial committee. So everyone be good til 2020.

    No, 2022, because this convention changed that. See above.

    It helps to pay attention and to quit obsessing over the Secretary.

  16. George Phillies

    An obvious solution is for the LNC to claim that the old judicial committee persists, organize an appeal to the Judicial Committee. and have them work out the answer. Can they rule they are not the Judicial Committee? Yes, and it would be a valid binding. Compare with the Dred Scott decision, in which Scott could only appeal to the Supreme Court if he had standing by virtue of being a citizen, leading to the ruling that he was not a citizen after all.

  17. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==It helps to pay attention and to quit obsessing over the Secretary.===

    For once I don’t think Ms. Moore is obsessing on me. The Secretary at the time was Ms. Mattson. But she had her hands full trying to get results up in time so she cannot be blamed.

    I tried to object on the floor but not being at a mic in a crowd of loud Libertarians it was done before anyone realized what was happening.

    But here we are and the LNC is about to do an Oregon-level-overreach of itself. The new members who don’t know about Oregon think I am having a meltdown for nothing. This is why knowing our history is critical.

  18. Andy Craig

    Caryn Ann’s preferred alternative would be *more* violative of the Bylaws than what the LNC is moving forward to do, in simply recognizing the top-7 vote-getters. It would be blatant making-it-up-as-they-go-along.

    There is no authorization anywhere to re-convene the convention for a mail ballot. No delegates were ever told to expect such a possibility, and if it had been proposed on the floor they almost certainly would have rejected it (or even more likely: the Chair would have ruled the proposal out of order). There simply is no 2018 national convention to refer the question to anymore. There are no delegates as of right now. They are ex-delegates, just like the ex-delegates to the 2016 or 2014 or any other past convention. Their mandate expired when the convention adjourned, and both their status as delegates and the convention itself ceased to exist. For all we know, it’s entirely possible that some of them aren’t even still Libertarians, and for all of them their commission as delegates has expired.

    A mail ballot would be lucky to get a 10% response rate, and would be wholly without any basis or precedent to justify it. On the other hand, we do have a rule that says JC is to be elected in the same manner as at-large. So clearly the least-bad option (and Nick Sarwark’s reasonable interpretation) is to do exactly that, and apply the election method used for at-large to the JC results.

    Personally, I’d be just fine with simply not having a JC until 2022 (the next convention authorized to elect one; not 2020). It’s a mostly-useless structure anyway. If you’re going to interpret it to say the convention “disapproved” of all the candidates, then you’re saying the convention decided not to elect anybody to the JC, and that decision should stand. There’s nothing that says the convention *has* to elect anybody to the JC if they find all of the candidates unworthy.

    But if you’re going to insist we have to have one, and that it can’t just stay vacant, there’s no better option than simply recognizing the top 7 vote-getters as constituting the JC. Those are the only two options that are even arguably compliant with the Bylaws. This idea of having a postal ballot of all the delegates weeks after the convention adjourned is nonsense on stilts.

  19. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Seebeck obviously is obsessing over vaccines still and didn’t notice that Ms. Mattson was secretary this time around.

    If Mr. Sarwark is foolish enough to run for a 4th term as chair he certainly will have to bear most of the responsibility for adjourning the convention before judicial committee chosen.

  20. paulie Post author

    It isn’t currently due til 2022. And Nick has been on JC, and could run again, so he could hand the gavel over by the time that happens. If the rules aren’t changed again.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy Craig,

    “There simply is no 2018 national convention to refer the question to anymore. There are no delegates as of right now. They are ex-delegates, just like the ex-delegates to the 2016 or 2014 or any other past convention. Their mandate expired when the convention adjourned, and both their status as delegates and the convention itself ceased to exist.”

    Without addressing any possible applicability to the instant case, I think it’s important to note that you’re at least partially wrong. The bylaws clearly and unambiguously assign at least SOME continuing power to national convention delegates beyond adjournment. LP Bylaws, Article VII, Section 12:

    “Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention
    or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the
    question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of
    the Bylaws.”

    But we still have the Gordian Knot. If the LNC takes any particular action regarding the composition of the Judicial Committee, and if 10% of the New Orleans delegates appeal that action, to whom are they appealing it? The Judicial Committee as it existed before the abortive/fumbled election, or the Judicial Committee chosen under some LNC action to constitute a Judicial Committee from the results of that election?

    When the convention adjourned sine die in 2000 without electing a new Judicial Committee, the LNC simply asked the existing committee to continue serving. Was that bylaws-compliant? Probably not, but it preserved institutional continuity and the existence of a body of final appeal.

    If the LNC chooses to do that, or to simply ratify the election of a new Judicial Committee composed of members who got the most votes, but did not get over the majority bar, or whatever, the bylaws will still not be being followed and same purpose will still be being served.

    The question comes down to which is worse:

    1) The LNC being able to do anything it damn well pleases for two years; or

    2) Defects in selection of the body responsible for stopping the LNC from doing anything it damn well pleases.

    My preference is for option 2, precisely because of the Oregon situation that’s been referenced. The executive committee violated the bylaws by constructively disaffiliating the Oregon LP so that it could instead recognize an impostor organization. That constructive disaffiliation was appealed to the Judicial Committee, which forced the bylaws to be adhered to. Had that appeal venue not been available, we would likely have been saddled with a fake Oregon LP to this very day and beyond.

  22. Libertydave

    This is so funny. Seeing all those people who condemned Oregon for violating their bylaws trying to justify national doing the same thing now.

  23. Andy Craig

    The rules say a majority is needed for election to the JC. The convention voted, and nobody received a majority for JC. Therefore, the convention elected nobody to the JC. Simple as that.

    You can say you don’t *like* that result, but there’s no rule that’s been broken by it.

    I’m fine with just taking the top-7. It’s reasonable, and it ultimately doesn’t really matter anyway, because the JC doesn’t really matter. But if you really, truly, want to be a stickler for the rules and violate none of them, the result is that we don’t have a JC at all for the next four years, because the convention declined to find any of the nominated candidates worth of election.

  24. Andy Craig

    I find it strange that the party that has “None of the above” as an option in all elections, and requires a majority threshold to be elected, finds it odd or unacceptable that “nobody was elected” is a possible result.

  25. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Good one, Andy! Is there a reason to suspect the current LNC of some unbridled amount of potential mischief? More then, for example, Wayne Root and his crew were in there 6-12 years ago?

  26. paulie Post author

    The rules say a majority is needed for election to the JC. The convention voted, and nobody received a majority for JC. Therefore, the convention elected nobody to the JC. Simple as that.

    Arguably, the suspension of the rules to elect LNC at large in a certain way and JC “in the same manner” overrides that.

    If that does not work (I’m far from a bylaws or Robert’s Rules expert), perhaps a special convention would be a fundraising, networking and learning opportunity? Many of us miss many of the great panel and breakout opportunities at national conventions due to convention business. Without platform, bylaws, LNC officer elections and presidential nominations, a special convention could afford some members a chance to check out some of that stuff. How about a Freedom Fest-like event, but with less conservatarian fusionism, organized by the LP, and with JC elections
    and perhaps an LSLA meeting and/or LNC meeting thrown in?

    The LSLA annual conventions used to be held in concert with an LNC meeting and a state convention and were – while not quite national convention size – a pretty good draw, and the next best thing in odd years. A few years ago LSLA annual meetings became separate, and I don’t think a single odd year LSLA meeting since then has turned out to be nearly the big draw organizers hoped for.

    It’s been 20 years since a national convention has been held in or anywhere near the Northeast corridor. Perhaps a special convention could highlight New Hampshire, say in conjunction with Porcfest. Or perhaps it could be held near the national office, thus creating an opportunity for in-person fundraising to finish paying off the mortgage?

  27. paulie Post author

    You can say you don’t *like* that result, but there’s no rule that’s been broken by it.

    That’s true. But I don’t like this bylaws change, made in 2014. I was for it at the time but in practice it has been a mess at each convention since that one (it took effect immediately). At this point I am for reverting the prior system of plurality elections as a relatively better alternative.

    It’s reasonable, and it ultimately doesn’t really matter anyway, because the JC doesn’t really matter.

    It may or may not. No cases were brought to one for decades. But in recent term, there have been JC cases every single term. The alternative is involving outside legal proceedings in LP internal business, something the JC is designed to help avoid, and something which I think most of us would agree is worth avoiding…but any one or two party members or interested observers can choose to go there.

  28. Andy Craig

    “”Arguably, the suspension of the rules to elect LNC at large in a certain way and JC “in the same manner” overrides that.””

    That’s Nick’s interpretation and the one the LNC seems most likely to adopt. I see those– accept the top 7 or say that no JC was elected– as the two reasonable interpretations.

    Tossing out the results of the convention to have some weird LNC-called vote-by-mail thing among the ex-delegates, would be the option farthest removed from any reasonable interpretation of the Bylaws & Rules.

  29. Andy Craig

    This convention adopted plurality-wins by the two-thirds necessary to suspend the rules. It seems plausible the next convention would be open to putting that change into the Bylaws & Rules by the same threshold.

  30. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Andy wrote: “”Arguably, the suspension of the rules to elect LNC at large in a certain way and JC “in the same manner” overrides that.””
    That’s Nick’s interpretation and the one the LNC seems most likely to adopt.

    Someone just needs to make a transcript of the relevant parts of the proceeding, from the copy at LP Youtube page. With all the verbal fumbling about, I’m sure there’s something that can be interpreted that way. 🙂

  31. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Actually my solution does not “violate” anything more. It remains the best solution. If we are going to strictly follow the bylaws and forget any equitable considerations (all of a sudden people are having “aha” moments about my claims of undue influence) then there is no JC. And that is awful.

    So how does equity allow us to remediate this? Using the equitable remedies from Robert’s “Parliamentary Law” – a mail ballot would do that. It is a kludge, but it is the most equitable one their is.

    Tom brought up what I was going to – it is absolutely false that the idea of the body of delegates ceases to exist after convention – they remain the trigger for appeals. For the very same JC that I say they get to elect, not the LNC (and switching the term to “recognize” doesn’t paper it over).

    What I see are some digging in of heels and some who initially scoffed at my idea don’t want to concede that it has merit after all. The first month or so of a term is always like that. And the factionalism I had hoped was blunted is sharper than ever.

  32. Andy Craig

    I don’t concede that the idea of an ad-hoc postal ballot has any merit at all, because it doesn’t. Neither on principle nor on practicality. And our parliamentary authority is RONR, 11th ed., not some randomly cherry-picked old edition of Robert’s Parliamentary Law.

    Per your insistence that the LNC shouldn’t have any role whatsoever in picking or acknowledging or enabling the creation of a JC… well then, the only answer for what the LNC can do about it is “nothing.” What authority does the LNC have to decide the rules and procedure of some kind of made-up postal vote scheme? What obligation does anybody have to recognize a JC that wasn’t created pursuant to the Bylaws?

    There was a simple and easy answer here, and it was to just recognize the top-7, which had a fairly reasonable interpretation of the Bylaws behind it and was obviously most in line with what the delegates intended. You found that unacceptable, but the only alternative is that it remains vacant until the next convention (and even *that* convention would have to amend the Bylaws to be able to elect a JC in a presidential year). Not that the LNC gets to just make up its own method for electing a JC. A postal vote would be wholly illegitimate, and on top of that have a near-bupkis response rate.

    Even if you *did* go forward with a postal vote, any kind of quorum requirement on it would not be met, and so you’re right back to square one. It’s a “solution” that wouldn’t even solve the problem on its own terms. It’d be a huge waste of resources and labor only to produce the exact same null result.

  33. Andy Craig

    Let’s say you somehow did get a response rate somewhere in the double-digit percentages (as unlikely as that is)— why should we think the result of a postal vote would be any different than the results from the convention? We’d still be using the same hopelessly flawed approval-voting mechanism with a majority threshold, and still have three-dozen-plus candidates or however many there were.

    So what happens when we do this ad-hoc postal vote and *still* nobody gets 50%+1 of the delegates?

  34. Andy Craig

    Let’s say you somehow did get a response rate somewhere in the double-digit percentages (as unlikely as that is)— why should we think the result of a postal vote would be any different than the results from the convention? We’d still be using the same hopelessly flawed approval-voting mechanism with a majority threshold, and still have three-dozen-plus candidates or however many there were.

    So what happens when we do this ad-hoc postal vote and *still* nobody gets 50%+1 of the delegates?

  35. Andy Craig

    I think that’s a pretty widespread point of agreement at this point. It’s consistently been a trainwreck (though I don’t see on what basis the LNC could decide to change it for a hypothetical postal ballot).

    I just hope the 2020 Bylaws cmte. comes up with some agreeable fix. Either dropping the majority requirement (which is what the convention decided to do for at-large), or going to some different voting system, etc. Something reasonable that can pass and be adopted w/ immediate effect.

  36. Paul

    I can understand approval voting for JC, but at large positions would likely better serve different factions with an STV system.

  37. Paul

    Fun fact for the sacred RONR priesthood about suspending the rules: They can’t suspend the bylaws.

  38. paulie Post author

    So anyone have any feedback on the idea of an in person special convention/fundraiser/LP organized movement networking conference?

    See 2018/07/14 at 7:08 am

  39. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Seriously, has anyone bothered to go back to the video of the end of the convention and see what, if any, actual approved decisions were made? I’ll mention it to a bushy tailed new member I’ve noticed.

  40. Seebeck

    >Seriously, has anyone bothered to go back to the video of the end of the convention and see what, if any, actual approved decisions were made? I’ll mention it to a bushy tailed new member I’ve noticed.

    I did. The motion to accept the top 5 LNC At-Large on an up-down vote did pass, but it did NOT include the JC. See the Day 3 video at 9:04:30 through 9:11:20, ESPECIALLY at 9:12:25.

    For any resolutions, they’re all over the tape, so you’ll have to poke around for yourself.

  41. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==I don’t concede that the idea of an ad-hoc postal ballot has any merit at all, because it doesn’t.==

    I wasn’t referring to you. We already agreed once this year and used up our allotment.

    === And our parliamentary authority is RONR, 11th ed., not some randomly cherry-picked old edition of Robert’s Parliamentary Law.===

    Tell that to the authors of RONR who used that very passage to answer a similar question. I won’t say the sky is blue Andy because I don’t want to force you into the position of having to deny it since I think it would kill you to ever say anything I propose has merit. Time for peace yet?

    ===Per your insistence that the LNC shouldn’t have any role whatsoever in picking or acknowledging or enabling the creation of a JC… well then, the only answer for what the LNC can do about it is “nothing.” ===

    It is not my insistence, it is both logical and principled that the judged body doesn’t get to pick the judge.

    ===You found that unacceptable===

    As did now many state chairs, and every parliamentary authority I have consulted, and that includes Ms. Mattson.

    ==Even if you *did* go forward with a postal vote, any kind of quorum requirement on it would not be met===

    That is not how quorum works in non-in-person votes in the Party.

    See also

    https://steemit.com/libertarian/@pinkflame/there-are-bylaws-and-then-there-is-equity

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Fun fact for the sacred RONR priesthood about suspending the rules: They can’t suspend the bylaws.===

    that is foundational

    but these are the convention rules not the bylaws

  43. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Let’s say you somehow did get a response rate somewhere in the double-digit percentages (as unlikely as that is)— ===

    Not necessary under the way we do quorum.

    ==why should we think the result of a postal vote would be any different than the results from the convention?===

    What makes you think that is relevant?

    ==So what happens when we do this ad-hoc postal vote and *still* nobody gets 50%+1 of the delegates?==

    Then the delegates have decided. Or a ballot can ask if it is their intent to elect the top 7. Andy instead of looking for problems, how about solutions? and time for peace yet?

  44. Darryl W Perry

    So anyone have any feedback on the idea of an in person special convention/fundraiser/LP organized movement networking conference?
    I have thoughts, however the bylaws don’t seem to allow it. It looks like the 2016 Convention repealed the provision for a Non Regular Convention that last appears in the 2014 Bylaws.
    See Article 11 Section 2:
    Non-Regular Conventions:
    In any year which does not include a Regular Convention, a non-regular convention may be held at the discretion of the National Committee.

  45. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And non-regular conventions NEVER allowed for business. Go look at the 2014 bylaws.

  46. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===“approval voting” and “majority for win” do not make sense as a combination.===

    Yep. I don’t like approval voting in general but this is the worst use of it unless you could only vote for five (At-Large) or seven (JC).

  47. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck Moulton, Ms. Moore is wanting to bet on whether or not I will make it to the end of my term as Secretary (she says no). If I were you, I would pick that one up. You can thank me in two years.

  48. Seebeck

    Carol Moore/Secession.net
    July 13, 2018 at 09:02
    Seebeck obviously is obsessing over vaccines still and didn’t notice that Ms. Mattson was secretary this time around.

    Dear Ms. Moore:

    I am vaccine-damaged, so yes, not only am I well-educated on vaccines, far more than you will ever hope to accomplish, and I deal with their effects every day–over 4 decades later, and very successfully, too, in spite of the damage.

    What you know about what I know wouldn’t fill a thimble at a beach, with either sand or water, and you are nowhere near a mindreader.

    Take your jealous toxicity and stuff it.

    Seebeck

    P.S. Yes, that’s very blunt. I don’t care. She deserves it, and she gets back what she gives.

  49. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Ms. Harlos sure is obsessed with me. I’ve gotten screenshots of at least three times she discussed me on her FB page, one of them still up.

    I only discuss her in relevant forums where abortion or candidates are brought up because I care about LIBERTY FOR WOMEN.

    And can’t help but make fun of “sex positive” anti-abortionists. I mean if one of her newly sex positive anti-abortion minions gets pregs, is CAH going to help support the kid?

    Yes, several of us were having a jolly discussion of Ms. Harlos latest tantrums and other behaviors wondering how long she would last. But the bet is only among those on that closed group who are pro-choice.

    Dang, I’ll have to screen shot that post for future reference. I save all the links, of course.

    Speaking of archiving. Someone pointed out a comment where Ms. Harlos says she ARCHIVES all her nasty messenger messages. So why didn’t she ARCHIVE all those alleged propositions she got?

    I mean a legal secretary who was harassed in a past life NOT keeping the evidence when it’s so easy to do? I find that REAL hard to believe… (“oh, i was so upset” just don’t cut it.)

  50. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Seebeck: July 19, 2018 at 08:47
    Dear Ms. Moore:
    I am vaccine-damaged, so yes, not only am I well-educated on vaccines, far more than you will ever hope to accomplish, and I deal with their effects every day–over 4 decades later, and very successfully, too, in spite of the damage.

    CM: Hey, Seebeck. I read something really cool you wrote about 2016 convention a few days ago. Too bad my memory shot or I’d remind you.

    Anyway, I was just being snotty. Actually, I had the senior superflu shot last fall, spent 3 months in bed afterwards, and in June was diagnosed with something nasty that may keep me on radiation and chemotherapy for a few months. So don’t think I was being anything more than snotty about vaccine obsessions.

    And I think being obsessed about a liberty undermining little liar who couldn’t care less if ½ the human race is made sex slaves is JUST as important as being obsessed with the depradations of big pharma… which I’m researching/wrestling with how to deal with several hours a day even as we speak.

    Has Ms. Harlos expressed ANY sympathy with women forced to undergo 16 week abortions because their state has made it so expensive and difficult to get 10 week abortions? Tto undergo self- or back alley abortions cause they can’t travel out of state? Tp carry severely deformed kids who will die after birth to term,? Who go to the doctor because of a 12 week miscarriage and are charged with inducing illegal abortion (even today!!)? Who can’t even get legal anti-abortion pills/morning after pills because their state has regulated them out of existence (one state already).

    Let’s hear that sympathy and I’ll spread it near and far.

  51. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Speaking of hypocrisy, here’s an interesting article at Harlos steamit page. (The link won’t post”

    pain-kratom-and-the-state

    The government is interfering so much with paternalistic protectionism over our own bodies that it is forcing some people to be prisoners to conditions that could be ameliorated based upon their own cost/benefit analysis….Enter the state with its rampaging campaign against opioids creating unknown victims of the chronic pain sufferers that now had to beg and plead and disrupt their lives to simply be granted the right (if it pleaseth the crown) to relieve their pain. It is my own business if I want to risk addiction, or liver damage, or shortened life span, or growing a tail, or whatever the side effects may be as long as I am not hurting anyone else….”

    Drugs for Caryn, but not for women who want to remove a 2 day or 8 week old fetus from their uterus. Caryn thinks that kills SOMEONE…

    Well, tens of millions of American’s consciences say having opiods easily available and legal kills thousands of born someones every year…

    Both Caryn and tens of millions of Americnas are delusional and wrong. But we have to keep educating them and niticking and criticizing them when they seek power to enforce their views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *