<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">First, I must again note my objection
that there is not an actual Rules Committee report under the
current bylaws. Any such report should have been posted online at
least 60 days before the convention. There is no mechanism to
waive this. Posting something on the website which purports to be
a report under 1100.3.2 constitutes a bylaws violation in itself.
And 1100.3.4 can't happen because of the same timeline problems.
<i><b>Would the same "oopsie daisy it's okay" principle apply to
members, or does that only apply to the Rules Committee?</b></i>
All of this work should have happened in the 3 months where no
meetings occurred.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The use of the word "shall" in 1100.3.2
does not give wiggle room. At this point, there are two clear
options which comply with the Constitution and Bylaws as written:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">1. Delete the entire 1100.3 section of
the bylaws, let RONR take care of it. This is what I've wanted
all along, and the creation of these rules outside convention has
been my gripe all along.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">2. Submit the proposal from an
individual under Bylaw 1100.3.5 (but this does not automatically
cause it to be considered, under the wording in 1100.3.6, as it is
not mentioned in 1100.3.6)<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I realize that the rules just get
ignored or re-interpreted whenever inconvenient, but this is what
was passed, and the language is quite clear:<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<blockquote>
<p><b>1100.3 RECOMMENDED CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES </b><br>
</p>
<p>1100.3.1 The SPRC shall have one or more meetings to
consider, and propose, changes to the State Party
Constitution, in advance of convention as provided herein.</p>
<p>1100.3.2 The Rules Committee <u><b>shall</b></u> publish its
proposed changes to the State Party Constitution not less than
sixty (60) days prior to the state convention or any special
convention called for the purpose of amending the
constitution, the SPRC shall publish to the State Party
Executive Committee, and to the Party's website, proposed
changes. The Rules Committee <u><b>shall</b></u><u><b> also</b></u>
give notice to the members of the ability to comment in
1100.3.4 by posting it on the State Party's website. </p>
<p>1100.3.3 Any member may submit proposed changes to the State
Party Constitution to the Rules Committee not less than
forty-five (45) days prior to the state convention or any
special convention called for the purpose of amending the
constitution.<br>
</p>
<p>1100.3.4 The Rules Committee shall consider any proposed
changes submitted by a member in accordance with 1100.3.3, and
publish all member proposals, with rules committee comments,
or any revisions to the Rules Committee report(s) they deem
appropriate in light of member comments to the State Party
Executive Committee, and to the Party's website, proposed
changes, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the state
convention or any special convention called for the purpose of
amending the constitution.<br>
</p>
<p>1100.3.5 Any member may also submit any additional proposal
to the Rules Committee not less than fifteen (15) days prior
to the state convention or any special convention called for
the purpose of amending the constitution, and the Rules
Committee shall publish such reports to the Party's website,
and, if they desire, any comments thereon, or, if they do not
review these proposals, the caveat will be placed that they
have not had the opportunity to review or comment on the
proposals.<br>
</p>
<p>1100.3.6 The Convention body may consider any and all
proposals (i) by the Rules Committee (or any minority report)
under 1100.3.2, including revisions to same under 1100.3.4;
(ii) any member proposals or comments thereto under 1100.3.4;
(iii) with a suspension of the rules by the convention body
through a two-thirds (2/3) vote; or (iv) the change or
proposal either extraordinarily minor, or it lessens the scope
of the proposal of the SPRC in terms of the burden upon party
members or to increase their rights (i.e., if the proposal is
to increase dues by $5, it would be in order to change this to
a $2 increase). <font color="#cc0000"><i>[ Note: Nothing
about 1100.3.5 is specifically listed here ]</i></font><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Second, this committee had recommended
the deletion of 900.6.8; the "takes effect upon close of
convention" clause. However, this recommendation was never
presented to the Executive Committee. This bylaw creates a
tangled web, which is why its removal from the Constitution was
proposed in 2017, and that passed. Re-creating the provision as a
bylaw went directly against actions in convention. Barring action
from others, I plan to bring this to the next Executive Committee
meeting for ratification as it is critical that this happens.<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p class="P11"><span class="T6">900.6.8</span><span class="T3">
Any amendments proposed or passed at convention, to
the Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, shall
not take effect until the moment the Convention adjourns.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Third, I strongly disagree with the
blame-shifting for not meeting the deadline. While you have
claimed you had planned to meet in "late December" to finish the
report, the in-person meeting was called on December 19th. Notice
typically requires 7 days. Were you planning to meet sometime
between December 27th and December 31st? An emergency meeting held
in the busy Christmas and New Years season? During discussion on
the meeting called on Jan 5th, there was one committee member who
asked to have the meeting time moved. I said I would be happy to
have more meetings, if someone else wanted to organize it/them. I
said, at the time, <i>"</i><i>I am not opposed to additional
meetings of the committee. I've been asking about them for
months."</i> No other meetings were called. To be fair, I was
not watching the 60-day clock either, knowing that I would be
submitting a complete proposal under my rights as a member under
1100.3.3, and had the 45-day mark in my head. But the purported
committee report fails the 45-day mark.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Fourth, at the in-person meeting in
Frankfort, Joey asked if we were going to review everything, even
though the committee agreed to start with the report from the
previous committee. It was agreed upon then that it would be so.
That did not occur. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Fifth, I was within my rights as an
LPKY member under the Executive-Committee-created Bylaw 1100.3.3
to submit a proposal, and did so within the rules. Alterations did
in fact happen between the original submission in August and a few
weeks ago; ones I would have preferred to have debated in this
committee had the lack of meetings from April through August and
October through December not been a de-facto filibuster of that
process. Further, I disagree with the setting of a narrative of
an "omnibus" proposal. The proposal is a complete proposal,
including Operating Rules and Bylaws, in accordance with the
original agreement made in Frankfort. My proposal enshrines
Membership definition and rights, and core structure and
responsibilities for governance. While the committee wasn't
acting, I still was an an individual; going so far as to put the
Constitutional proposals into the preferred 3-column format, as
has been requested by others, including those on this very
committee. Having a mere 8-10 meetings on something as important
as our Constitution and other governing documents, especially in
consideration of the massive change caused by very first vote we
took to split things apart, is, IMO, a disservice to our members
and defeats the purpose of a sub-committee.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Finally, I have serious concerns about
this report. We didn't discuss sub-committees at all, and what we
have of a report has them broken apart between the Const and Op
Rules. Why? Why have a convoluted split definition? Why not put
it all in Operating Rules? These are things I'd hoped to talk
about on the Rules Committee in the 3 months that we did not meet.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am reviewing it now, and comparing it
against the audio of what was done on the committee; that this
report feels extremely incomplete and disjointed causes me great
concern. On top of the obvious bylaws violation.<br>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>ken<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/29/19 4:23 PM, <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:chris.wiest@lpky.org">chris.wiest@lpky.org</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01cb01d4b818$d2e054b0$78a0fe10$@lpky.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:456293163;
mso-list-template-ids:-384243512;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:709499090;
mso-list-template-ids:-1408206448;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:736365939;
mso-list-template-ids:849226288;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1180925213;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1227347314 1329728932 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1729064490;
mso-list-template-ids:-9436096;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:2083139669;
mso-list-template-ids:-502490150;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-start-at:5;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:chris.wiest@lpky.org">chris.wiest@lpky.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chris.wiest@lpky.org"><chris.wiest@lpky.org></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 27, 2019 2:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Dave Capano' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dave@capano.com"><dave@capano.com></a>;
'Chris Wiest' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chris.wiest@lpky.org"><chris.wiest@lpky.org></a>;
'Cristi Kendrick' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:cristi.kendrick@lpky.org"><cristi.kendrick@lpky.org></a>;
'John Hicks' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:john.hicks@lpky.org"><john.hicks@lpky.org></a>;
'Joseph Redmon' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:joseph.redmon@lpky.org"><joseph.redmon@lpky.org></a>;
'Mark Gailey' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mark.gailey@lpky.org"><mark.gailey@lpky.org></a>;
'<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:chris@cwiestlaw.com">chris@cwiestlaw.com</a>'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chris@cwiestlaw.com"><chris@cwiestlaw.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:harlen.compton@lpky.org">harlen.compton@lpky.org</a>'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:harlen.compton@lpky.org"><harlen.compton@lpky.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Rules Report<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">In the
interest of time, I am attaching the report I had generated
in December from the minutes of our meetings, which
summarized our votes and recommendations. I had held this
report, when Mr. Moellman scheduled the meeting in January,
since it appeared that perhaps a majority of this Committee
felt like we should hold the report and meet in person, as
that was one of the items on the agenda. I realize we are
now behind schedule, and I would have simply moved forward
with this process in late December that I am doing now, but
it appeared the majority of you wanted to take a different
approach and I wanted to respect that.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">I intend to
publish the attached report to the website and the executive
committee in the next 48 hours (January 29, 2019 at 4 pm).
If any of you have a beef with the report before that, let
me know. I want to be clear: I do not view it as in order,
or appropriate, to revisit or reconsider the many hours and
months of work we have put in so I do not think that
substantive changes are in order if they were not made in
our many meetings. But, if this report in any way does not
reflect the votes that were taken or recommendations we
made, then I am happy to make corrections.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">In the
spirit of (2), if members want to change the rationale of
any proposal that they voted in favor of, or want to fairly
change the characterization of what it does (provided it
meets the space limitations), that is also in order. If I
think it gets into advocacy, we may need to have a
discussion or phone call to discuss it. I am going to hold
this Tuesday afternoon, from 4-5 p.m., open for a telephone
meeting for that purpose.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">I am going
to resend around Mr. Moellman’s 100+ page omnibus proposals
that he has gone back and done outside of our process. I
want this committee to provide me comments to the <u>CONSTITUTIONAL
PROPOSALS ONLY AT THIS TIME</u> if you have any. We will
be posting his Constitutional proposals and his election
rule/bylaw proposals to the website this week (I have to go
and break them out, which is unfortunate, but I will do
that), but this Committee’s role is not to provide comments
on his election bylaws proposals. My guess is that he and I
will need to debate the election committee items on the
floor, particularly the five or six or so proposals that I
think are going to cause our candidates legal problems or
open them to challenges. As for the Constitutional
proposals, I will post any committee member comments to Mr.
Moellman’s constitutional proposals along with his
constitutional proposals provided they are received by this
coming Saturday, February 2.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="5" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">As for
Operating Rules, I am going to ask that we meet in person to
take those up. I checked the Frankfort Library, but it is
booked the next two Saturdays. I have a large conference
room at my offices if Joey, John, and Mark, in particular,
do not mind the drive to Northern Kentucky. I will buy
lunch for all if the three of you are agreeable to that. I
would propose Saturday the 9<sup>th</sup>, or Saturday the
16<sup>th</sup>, but I can also do Friday the 8th. I also
have AV capability in my conference room. My intent on
those is for this committee to hash out what Operating Rules
we can agree on. And, if we can’t get to a majority
agreement on a particular section, to move the particular
subject matter to the end of the report with a placeholder
in the report, so that it can be taken up later (or hashed
out on the floor).<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Chris<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>