Bonnie Scott wrote:
DD) None of us got to be Libertarians by obeying all the rules just because
they're so. (DD
BH) Debra, you either believe in adhering to voluntary contracts, or you
don't. (BH
BS) This is a question of HOW to interpret the bylaws, not whether or not to
follow them. (BS
Context restored above. Debra even replied by saying: "laws mean nothing to
me , if they are just and true i follow them , if not i ignore them. if a
rule is used to acheive a beneficial end then i may follow it , when i feel
its irrelevant or justifying bad decisions then i ignore it." I don't think
you want to associate yourself with the idea of following rules only when
they're convenient. As I explained on TPW, the PlatCom majority in Vegas
also followed rules that were extremely inconvenient for us.
BS) By this same exact logic, the LNC alternates cannot substitute in case
of absence of the primary member for their region. (BS
It's not "the same exact logic". The only mention of convention committee
alternates -- the very sentence that creates them -- carries a clear
description of their scope/purpose: "Ranked alternates may be named by the
appointing bodies to fill any vacancies in the Convention Committees." The
sentence that creates LNC alternates says nothing about their scope/purpose:
"Any affiliate party with 10% or more of the total national party sustaining
membership within affiliate parties (as determined for delegate allocation)
shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate
for each 10% of national sustaining membership."
BS) The bylaws define procedures for vacancies for PlatComm and LNC. (BS
The Bylaws define convention committee alternates with a scope/purpose that
mentions the word "vacancies". They do not do so for LNC alternates.
BS) The bylaws do not define absences for PlatComm. (BS
Are you suggesting that the authors of the Bylaws thought of "absences" and
"vacancies" as synonyms for convention committee alternates? They are
clearly distinguished in the convention rules regarding convention delegate
alternates, and are also distinguished in RONR.
BS) The bylaws only define mail-ballot absences for LNC, not face- to-face
meeting absences. "RONR p. 571, lines 24-35: If the bylaws authorize certain
things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.
There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without
some reason for it." LNC mail-ballot absences are even more "of the same
class" as LNC face-to-face meeting absences than PlatComm vacancies are with
PlatComm absences. (BS
On the contrary, I see vacancies and absences are much more "of the same
class", as they both involve an empty chair, with the only difference being
what we know about when/whether it will be filled again. By contrast, mail
ballots involve licking stamps etc., and no chairs.
Also, the discussion of mail ballots is quite removed from the generic
sentence that creates LNC alternates, whereas the infinitive phrase "to fill
any vacancies in the Convention Committees" directly modifies the "ranked
alternates may be named" language.
BS) LP Bylaw Article 8.1 would only cover classes of things not already
covered in the bylaws, and the Policy Manual (where the LNC creates its own
rules) cannot override the bylaws and RONR. (BS
And in this case the Policy Manual doesn't. The office of LNC alternate is
created by language that doesn't talk about either vacancies or absences,
and so the LNC (being a board) is free to make its own rules about how
alternates fill vacancies and absences. The language about mail ballots
indeed forbids the LNC from making a rule e.g. to count alternates' ballots
even when the region's representative votes. But in the case of vacancies
and absences, the Bylaws are simply silent about LNC alternates.
What I'm still waiting for anyone on your side of the debate to answer is:
*
What would be the difference if the infinitive phrase "to fill any
vacancies in the Convention Committees" had never been added to the sentence
creating convention committee alternates?
*
If filling in for absences is built into the notion of alternates,
why do both the Convention Rules and LNC Policy Manual explicitly specify
whether and how this may be done for delegate and LNC alternates?
