[Lpk-rules] Operating Rules

[Ken Moellman]

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? 

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. 

On 700.1.2.2, a few quick things: 

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. 

2. On where we differ: 

(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. 

(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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

On ethics/nepotism, that's probably going to get a little deep.  Can we
hold that for last? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LPKY State Party Treasurer 

On 2019-02-11 15:38, chris.wiest at lpky.org wrote:

> Folks: 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> I am also attaching a revised constitutional proposal that came out of our meeting (I think this was unanimous, please confirm). 
> 
> In term of procedure: 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> I need votes on 700.1.10 regarding mandating an agenda, particularly at affiliate conventions.  Mr. Moellman's is first, my alternative is second. 
> 
> We need proposals on the following: 
> 
> 1000.1: in kind donations 
> 
> 1000.2: ethics, nepotism, conflicts of interest 
> 
> 1000.3: party records / open records 
> 
> 1000.4: financial controls and party assets 
> 
> 1000.5: default standing convention rules 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> -Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lpmail.lp.org/pipermail/lpk-rules/attachments/20190211/ea02f563/attachment.html>