[Lpk-execomm] Amendment of agenda at last meeting violates bylaws
chris at cwiestlaw.com
chris at cwiestlaw.com
Tue Feb 5 13:57:02 EST 2019
This is non-sensical and makes no sense to me.
There are default rules in 900. They are what gets presented to the delegates for adoption or amendment. Section 900 also says the delegates can alter the rules. The delegates also get to alter, if they want, the threshold for suspending the rules. In the absence of the delegates tweaking it, it’s a 2/3 vote.
There is nothing in 900 that limits, or in any way restricts, the delegates on the convention floor.
That is why the section says:
"900.5.7 The third order of business by the Chair shall be the presentation of these Rules by the Rules Committee, as approved by the State Party Executive Committee, to the convention body, which may debate, adopt or amend these rules, by a simple majority vote. Once approved, these rules may not be further amended, but may be suspended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote."
The rules may be suspended by 2/3, but again, even the 2/3 is a default rules that can be tweaked.
There is also a default agenda. It is what gets presented for adoption or amendment. The executive committee has seen fit to present another recommendation to the delegates for their consideration.
"900.5.8 The fourth order of business by the Chair shall be presentation of the agenda for additional business. The agenda shall be the agenda that was provided in the notice for the Convention that was given by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the State Party. The convention body may debate, adopt or amend such agenda, by a simple majority vote. Once adopted, the agenda may not be modified, or its order of business deviated from, except by a motion to suspend the orders of the day, which must pass by a 2/3 vote."
If the delegates wanted, they could also tweak the 2/3 vote threshold to suspect the agenda.
We have now -- again -- spent more time and energy than is necessary focusing on stuff that the delegates will take up on the floor to do whatever the majority of the delegates want to do in terms of the agenda and convention rules -- and will probably have resolved in a matter of about 5 minutes on the convention floor.
I have a real fear that we will end up spending an hour of convention time dealing with this sort of minutiae instead of getting to the actual convention business. I would suggest that is no one's interest.
-CW
-----Original Message-----
From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces at lists.lpky.org> On Behalf Of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:39 PM
To: Harlen R. Compton <harlen.compton at lpky.org>
Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>; lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] Amendment of agenda at last meeting violates bylaws
Okay. Let me try to walk through this logic.
Article VII: RONR has procedures and rules set out for conventions.
They can be altered, yes; but by default, there is a body of rules there. We all agree on this, I believe.
The Constitution says that "Robert’s Rules of Order, shall govern the
conduct of all conventions, except as set forth in this section"... So
the wording makes clear that default RONR now dictates how the convention is run, except where specifically outlined in the article.
It then lists the first order of business, the second order of business, that _formalities_ may be waived by the convention body, and that election rules are to be done elsewhere.
There is no authority for the Executive Committee to alter anything else. Anything abridging or altering RONR outside of the specific exceptions is not Constitutional.
By default, RONR gives the convention body the right to alter thresholds, such as the threshold for a motion to suspend the rules or to amend an agenda. But the bylaws prevent this, codifying a hard 2/3rds threshold. The 2/3rds does indeed address amending the agenda after it's been passed. But what if the convention body wants motions to suspend the rules to be lower than 2/3rds? Normally, that's their right under RONR. The bylaws have taken away the convention body's ability to decide that threshold, and done so outside convention without consent of the convention body.
The bylaws amend the rules set under RONR by taking away the ability to amend this threshold, and therefore violate Article VII.
Additionally, Bylaw 900.5.8 specifically says that the agenda to be
presented voted upon by the delegates is the agenda provided in the
notice. However, we are now advertising a different agenda as the
proposed agenda. This does a disservice to the delegates. It is NOT
what they are to vote on, per the Bylaws. We're just advertising some
other agenda that, yes, a majority of Execomm voted for, but the
majority of Execomm has no authority to even make the proposed agenda or
to have presented to convention delegates.
Here's my proposal -- since the Rules Committee didn't get their report
in on time, and since the Execomm wants to amend the agenda, and because
the bylaws alter the rights of delegates in convention, and because the
bylaws were supposed to be "temporary"... Let's repeal bylaws sections
900 and 1100. We have RONR to fall back on, it's what we did up until
2017, and there's no good reason to give delegates had full control of
_their_ convention. We follow the Constitution, and we roll with it.
It will avoid a mess at the beginning of the convention, as I make
motions to alter agendas to wipe out those restrictions.
---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LPKY State Party Treasurer
On 2019-02-04 11:47, Harlen R. Compton wrote:
> I think I may be missing what you're getting at. Bylaw 900.5.8 sets
> the default agenda to that which was provided in notice (the
> pre-amended agenda). 900.5.X is about the CONVENTION BODY not the
> State Executive Committee. The convention body may adopt the agenda
> submitted by the Chair, or may amend it, in any case it is
> amended/adopted by a simple majority. The "2/3" you were speaking of
> is to amend the agenda after it has been adopted by the delegates in
> convention.
>
> I concur that 900.5.8 requires that this "default agenda" be the one
> that was provided in the notice to the delegates and that we have to
> start from there. However, a majority of the state executive
> committee voted to shift the agenda around and I suspect that it is
> harmless error to have the revised agenda on the website because one
> of the first things that is going to happen at convention is to amend
> the agenda to be what we voted on last week. I think it may be more
> informative that posting the original agenda knowing how likely things
> are to be amended. We could change it back, but to what end? The
> agenda on the website isn't binding at all and is meant to assist
> delegates in making plans.
>
> As to the language of 900.5.X (and also 1100) being
> "unconstitutional", I disagree. Yes, the convention "shall" be
> governed by RONR. It is RONR that provides guidance on the
> interpretation of governing documents and the use of affirmative
> language (i.e. "shall") with regard to committees and that guidance
> from RONR is what created the impetus to section 1100 to reign some of
> the Rules Committee's responsibilities in. RONR governs the
> convention, and RONR itself gives deference to the party's governing
> documents. To say that something is unconstitutional because it
> supersedes RONR in convention would also be to say that the rest of
> the Constitution and Bylaws that cover anything that *could* be acted
> on in convention are illegal except for Article VII Section 5 of the
> Constitution.
>
>
>
>
> On 2019-02-04 01:54, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
>> I'd like to get a ruling from the chair on this...
>>
>>
>> Does section 900.5.x violate the Constitution, or did the motion to
>> re-arrange the convention agenda violate bylaw 900.5.8? Because from
>> what I can see, it's one or the other.
>>
>> Also, if 900.5.x violates the Constitution, I think that means section
>> 1100 violates it as well, since they both affect the conduct of a
>> convention, and the Constitution says it's run by RONR except where
>> outlined.
>>
>> It does a disservice to members if we have the wrong (illegal) agenda
>> posted to the website. So this needs a ruling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For reference, here is the constitution, saying that RONR runs
>> conventions except the order amendments as outlined in the
>> Constitution:
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VII: CONVENTIONS
>>
>> Section 5. Conduct of Convention
>>
>> A. Robert’s Rules of Order, shall govern the conduct of all
>> conventions, except as set forth in this section;
>>
>> B. The first order of business shall be the credentialing of all
>> Voting Members to the Convention, which shall be determined in
>> accordance with the rules established for the convention (which may
>> include, by way of example, use of the Membership Committee or a
>> Credentials Committee), and the Elections Committee, insofar as voting
>> for nominations for candidates to public office are concerned;
>>
>> C. The second order of business shall be the election of a Convention
>> Chair and Secretary; the Secretary shall keep minutes reflecting
>> actions taken at the convention. The Chair shall be the Executive
>> Committee Chair unless not present, or removed by a three-fifths (3/5)
>> vote of the convention body. The Secretary of the Executive Committee
>> shall be the Secretary of the Convention, unless not present, or
>> removed by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the convention body, The Chair
>> shall be entitled to employ or utilize a parliamentarian to assist on
>> matters of procedure.
>>
>> D. The Party, in Convention, shall have the ability to waive, by
>> three-fifths (3/5) vote, any and all formalities, notice requirements,
>> and legalities related to any question arising under this
>> Constitution, except for questions arising under rules enacted by the
>> Elections Committee for nominations for candidates to public office,
>> which questions are reserved to the Elections Committee, and is
>> encouraged to do so provided such requirements are determined by the
>> Party, in Convention, to be substantially complied with.
>>
>> E. Any nomination of candidates shall be as set forth in Article VIII,
>> below, and shall be complied with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LPKY State Party Treasurer
>>
>> On 2019-01-31 16:12, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
>>> Actually, it looks like 900.5 may contain unconstitutional language:
>>>
>>>
>>> ARTICLE VII: CONVENTIONS
>>>
>>> Section 5. Conduct of Convention
>>>
>>> Robert’s Rules of Order, shall govern the conduct of all conventions,
>>> except as set forth in this section;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The use of the word "shall" means it is not an option. So if
>>> anything
>>> trumps RONR in Bylaws that doesn't conform to the specific exemptions
>>> in the Constitution then it's invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>> LPKY State Party Treasurer
>>>
>>> On 2019-01-31 15:05, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
>>>> FYI - here's that language I was concerned about when we discussed
>>>> amending the agenda: "The agenda shall be the agenda that was
>>>> provided
>>>> in the notice for the Convention". We had a vote, but the vote did
>>>> not
>>>> have the vote threshold of 3/5ths under Bylaw 1200 to waive Bylaw
>>>> 900.5.8.
>>>>
>>>> 900.5.8 The fourth order of business by the Chair shall be
>>>> presentation of the agenda for additional business. THE AGENDA
>>>> SHALL BE
>>>> THE AGENDA THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE for the Convention that
>>>> was
>>>> given by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the State Party.
>>>> The
>>>> convention body may debate, adopt or amend such agenda, by a simple
>>>> majority vote. Once adopted, the agenda may not be modified, or its
>>>> order of business deviated from, except by a motion to suspend the
>>>> orders of the day, WHICH MUST PASS BY A 2/3 VOTE.
>>>>
>>>> And there's also a codified 2/3rds threshold. What if the body
>>>> wants to
>>>> make a motion to suspend only be 60%, or 55%, or even 50%? We can't
>>>> suspend the bylaws, so we can't lower that particular codified
>>>> threshold
>>>> even though the body can otherwise adjust any other threshold to
>>>> suspend. This is creating a restriction on the body outside
>>>> convention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, I suggest that we should gut bylaw 900. At a minimum, the
>>>> 2/3rds
>>>> threshold should be removed, and barring other action, the original
>>>> agenda restored.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>> LPKY State Party Treasurer
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lpk-execomm mailing list
>>>> Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
>>>> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lpk-execomm mailing list
>>> Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
>>> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lpk-execomm mailing list
>> Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
>> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
_______________________________________________
Lpk-execomm mailing list
Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
More information about the Lpk-execomm
mailing list