<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Just as a note: From an RONR procedural standpoint, after-the-fact votes aren't really in order but whatever. That said, it would be good to have the full committee's input on those matters. As a matter of consistency, would Ms. Kendrick's comments/votes be okay retroactively through the beginning of the term of this committee, if she so chooses?</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 600.6.5.2, I would like to submit a friendly amendment to change "any other member to bring forth" to be "any other Voting Member to bring forth". That makes more sense; we don't need proposals from random registered Ls.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 700.1.2.2, a few quick things:</p>
<p>1. On where we agree: Both proposals should have 700.1.2.5 and 700.1.2.6 from the second option, and what is numbered as 700.1.2.5 in the first proposal should be renumbered 700.1.2.7. I had both "weather emergency" and "venue cancellation" clauses in my proposal. We agree 100% on 700.1.2.5 and 700.1.2.6. And if everyone else agrees, these should be in black.</p>
<p>2. On where we differ:</p>
<p>(a) The chosen dates for agenda/notice submission. The deadlines for submitting proposals in the first proposal are earlier than the second proposal, and that is done to provide the State Execomm time to jump in and fix the convention with proper notice still being provided to Voting Members AND to avoid holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years) during those deliberations and clean-up. (I don't want to be fixing an affiliate's convention during Christmas!) The dates on that were very specific to protect members' ability to get proper notice. It is my hope that with the "un-capping" of the "earliest submission dates" that we'll see affiliates planning 6 months in advance.</p>
<p>(b) The chosen dates for the convention. First, due to weather issues, the second proposal could end up with affiliate conventions being rescheduled to the same weekend as the state convention. Additionally, this year's state party convention would literally be 50% cheaper if it had been held a week earlier. Also, holding the convention on the 3rd of 4th weekend in March is inevitably going to cause a scramble to get multiple "declaration of candidacy" forms filed by April 1st. The balance of "last weekend in Feb/first weekend in March" worked very, very well for about a decade. It was put there because of the cost and the timing of form filings.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 700.1.10, I don't think this is really a dispute at all. It's put on the agenda. The members can always just vote to table the item of business. The end. If you want to make that explicit, then so be it; but members can always vote to table any business in convention.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>I don't want to re-hash old stuff, and I'm willing to leave it go, but 600.6.4.1 seems to suggest that every party must have a P&I committee. If so, I think it would be wise to put a "If a party chooses to have ..." clause in there.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On in-kinds, is there much of a dispute, other than they should be pre-approved? Maybe 1/2 up front, 2/3rds after-the-fact? As the treasurer, I hate in-kinds. For the sake of the books, it's best to have the party purchase everything directly rather than doing in-kinds, reimbursements, etc.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On ethics/nepotism, that's probably going to get a little deep. Can we hold that for last?</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On party records / open records, we discussed this in part on Saturday. I can agree to keeping contact information for members more private if the thresholds for a member-called convention are lowered to 1/3rd, and provide the check-and-balance of 50% being able to cancel it.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On financial controls and party assets, I need to look over my proposal again... But I need to talk to my family for a bit.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On default standing convention rules, I would personally much rather codify some very basic rules, and then a Standing Convention Rules document could be created based on what delegates of a particular party want. The only concern would be a rogue affiliate disenfranchising would-be members, which could be resolved through dissolution. Otherwise, I believe we should just default to RONR.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<div>---<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">Ken C. Moellman, Jr.<br />LPKY State Party Treasurer</div>
</div>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 2019-02-11 15:38, chris.wiest@lpky.org wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am attaching the Operating Rules draft that we got through Saturday (in pdf). The stuff in red was stuff in dispute/contention. Black and underlined was items of agreement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am also attaching a revised constitutional proposal that came out of our meeting (I think this was unanimous, please confirm).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>In term of procedure:</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think if either Mr. Hicks or Mr. Capano would like to vote on the competing proposals in 500.0 related to dues, they can do so. Same with the 500.2 proposal. And the 600.1.3 related to at-large. And 600.5.2.5 related to minutes for committees.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I need votes from everyone on the 700.1.2 provisions related to conventions and scheduling of them. Mr. Moellman's proposal is first, and my alternative proposal is second. If anyone has any alternatives, those are also in order.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please take a look at the 700.1.2.5/7 language about affiliate dissolution. I tweaked Ken's, and it is red, but I think we are really close.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I need votes on 700.1.10 regarding mandating an agenda, particularly at affiliate conventions. Mr. Moellman's is first, my alternative is second.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need proposals on the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; color: red;">1000.1: in kind donations </span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; color: red;">1000.2: ethics, nepotism, conflicts of interest </span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; color: red;">1000.3: party records / open records </span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; color: red;">1000.4: financial controls and party assets </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; color: red;">1000.5: default standing convention rules</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was going to take a stab this evening, and looked at Ken's proposals as well. We may have agreement on a good bit of it (maybe 85%), but are likely to have some disagreement on some as well. If anyone else has ideas, those are also in order.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Chris</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>