There seems to be a hole in the bylaws here. What should happen when it’s no longer the case that 3/4 of the LNC can agree on what leadership/bylaws to recognize for an affiliate? E.g., who should be on the state chairs list, who gets to vote on the regional LNC rep, and what should lp.org link to?
Note that http://www.lp.org/states/Oregon currently does not point to any affiliate web site.
The LNC interest in affiliate bylaws is established by LPUS bylaw 6.2: “Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with the Party Secretary.”
The LNC interest in who affiliate chairs are is established by LPUS bylaw 8.8: “The voting procedure for the removal and replacement of regional representatives shall be determined by the regions. In the absence of any such procedures, a majority vote of the state chairs shall prevail.”
I didn’t ask what criteria the LNC should use to decide among competing claimants to leadership of an affiliate. I instead asked what should happen if we fall through the hole in our bylaws that opens when it’s no longer the case that 3/4 of the LNC can agree on who leads an affiliate.
@119 “Vote to change” begs a question that the JudCom might imminently be asked to decide, so I indeed won’t debate the merits of it — except to note that a recognition of the 2009 status quo is a curious sort of “change”.
Your construction “good news…” fallaciously assumes there is some fact of the matter about which there is “news”, and thus arrives conveniently pre-rebutted.
I’m glad we (apparently) agree that the LNC has a bylaws-derived duty to track who are the chairs of its affiliates. QED.
NobodyReads, if you had read @118, you should know that I’m claiming that you’re begging a question — the one I mentioned @126, and that I can’t debate here for the reasons I gave there. Nobody reads, indeed.
I wonder if any discussants here could pass an ideological turing test on this topic.
I’m pretty sure that the only comment I’ve made on the substance of this case is just to quote two lines from the LPUS bylaws and point out that they make textual mentions of 1) affiliate party bylaws and 2) affiliate party chairs.
When I first came here (@111) to ask a question and report a fact, I didn’t expect to be confronted with misinformation that could so easily be corrected by quoting the bylaws, and so I couldn’t resist. But I’ll continue to decline to engage in advocacy about this case, and to avoid territory like Nick strayed into @3.
For my thoughts on JudCom transparency, see this 2010 email to my fellow JudCom members.
To clarify, I’ll always be an advocate for the relevance of bylaws in the LP — and for the practice of charitably interpreting the words of fellow Libertarians.
JudCom is Bill Hall (Chair), Nick Sarwark, Bob Sullentrup, Robert Latham, Lee Wrights, Judge Jim Gray, and Brian Holtz.
Wrights is not the kind of person who would change his opinion on a case like this just for some prospective advantage in the presidential nominating campaign.
Please do not set a precedent by letting an anonymous mudslinger goad you into recusing yourself.
@203 I second the idea that all parties remain “focused on the technical merits of the situation”. Whenever one side attacks the character of the other, they invite the inference that their case is weak on the merits.
@162 I saw nothing in the cease and desist letter that suggested that any LP member should consider himself to be alienated from his right to appeal to the Judicial Committee under the Bylaws.
Remember the 11th Commandment: “When speaking of a fellow self-described lover of liberty, thou shalt ascribe the best possible motives that are consistent with the evidence.”
