Last updated on February 15, 2025
The hearing will be Saturday, February 15, at 3PM. We will liveblog it here.
If a reader has access to the filings — the site is incompatible with something at my end — and would be so kind as to download and forward them, I would like to repost them here.
Meeting is about to start. Krawchuk is chairing. Slight delay for computer issues. Brittany Kosin is represented by Mimi Robson. The LNC is represented by Jonathan Jacobs.
Robson begins discussing the special order of business for removal. There are discussions of Roberts. How much notice is needed. Claims that a minimum notice for a removal is 30 days. Discusses the use of executive session or open session for the trial of removal. Notes there are no video recordings for the benefit of the membership or the Judicial Committee. Dismisses claims that there was a basis for holding the trial in executive session.
Jacobs discusses why there is a likelihood of litigation. Discusses why rules may have been changed. He lists specific Roberts matters relating to the filings supporting his positions.
There is a discussion of whether a gross misconduct rule was adopted and what the rule should be. There is discussion as to what the 2022 convention did or not do with respect to cause for removal.
Harlos: 2022 convention dealt with procedure, not which cause is needed for removal.
There is a discussion as to what happens if a rule is overturned as, e.g., a bylaws violation, and whether or not the LNC would revert to a prior rule.
There is a question of what “full due process” means. Is 30 days notice required for officer removal. Can the LNC change the notice requirement? Point was discussed.
There is a question as to whether or not a vote was invalid because some but not all members were not allowed to speak in debate.
There is an extended debate about what Roberts means. Tarnoff is arguing a position that Jacobs, Harlos, and Brown (nodding) say is incorrect.Tarnoff appears to say that the Judicial Committee does not have the authority to strike a rule that violates the bylaws.
A distance back, Jacobs invoked Black’s law dictionary. Krawchuk is challenging use of Black’s, which is allegedly of foreign extraction. There is an argument as to which sources may be used.
Krawchuk claims JC cannot nullify past decisions and JC is not bound by precedent.
Montoni: Had no questions.
Seebeck: No questions.
Stratton: Asks 30 second summary from each side as to what they want.
Jacobs: The rule is in order and works!
Robson: The rule violates due process and notice requirements. Also hearing should be in open session.
Second round of question:
Latham: How short a notice would prevent a due process trial. Robson: Less than 30 days is unreasonable.
Argument as to what the convention vote means.Tarnoff is asking if Roberts some chapter has been inserted in the bylaws by the convention vote returned Harlos. Tarnoff says some rules in Robert’s are not rules of order.
There is an extended debate over Robert’s Rules and the Bylaws. Was a notice of less than 30 days a violation of due process?
Argument as to whether the LNC has the authority to appoint a trial manager for the LP or for the LNC. Harlos goes on this point at vast length.
Krawchuk: Claims that the LNC cannot rule that an action violates their bylaws, because only the JC has the authority to rule that something violates the bylaws.
Long discussion on an abstract level. Arguments that seem to have little to do with the actual appeals.
Closing arguments: The main issues are executive session and notice. [GP: Little was said about Executive Session.]
Jacobs claims that there was a high likelihood of litigation. Tarnoff: Can “executive session may be used for a personnel issue” cover the executive session. Robson: This is a not a personnel matter because it only involves LNC members: LNC members are not personnel. Tarnoff complains that the bylaws contradict Roberts, which says that disciplinary hearings should be held in secret.
Hearing ends.
The By-laws committee already discussed this long before Jacobs’s involvement and maybe he should consider that he does not know everything about a group that he just joined and just happens to always be in the thick of so much drama.
I do know that this is not the bylaws committee and had very little to do with the bylaws.
Just to paint a picture of how confusing the hearing was. The JC spent 2.5 hours discussing three questions:
1) Can the lnc adopt a PM Amendment that violates the bylaws?
The answer is Yes.
2) Does the PM Amendment language violate the bylaws?
The answer is No.
3) Does the JC have the authority to void the motion to adopt if the PM Amendment language violated the bylaws?
The answer is Yes. However, there is some disagreement because unlike a bylaw, a special rule of order can be adopted properly but not be compliant therefore without any effect either (see question 1). The result means the JC might not have authority to void a special rule of order (only its effect from a LNC decision like in the Phillies decision).
The problem is that these questions are complicated and each element of the PM text had to be reviewed. The supporting parliamentary law was also not available so it made for circuitous discussion.
Dr. Phillies is right to say these are sole abstract and obtuse conversations.
What happened to the Executive Session issue?
It was addressed. It is just that the arguments on both sides were straightforward and IMHO illogical on the side opposing Kosin. The IC report is MUCH more a magnet for alleged litigation as the accused doesn’t have equal defense time. But all the RONR rules are for the average society- a political party is not the Cat Fancier’s Club. The “public figure” standard for defamation is very high. The other side also mis-cast the “personnel issues” portion in relating to the past. It is not when a contractor is present or talking, it is for discussions of performance, pay, duties, etc. The original intent was proven. If someone has allegedly done something, the delegates DESERVE to see the proceedings.
I expect after next week that there will no new JC appeals as the new Chair is responsive to the voice of all members and no matter the outcome of these two will comply without games.
It became a question of if testimony and deliberations fall under the category of “potential litigation.”
I watched the hearing and it may have made things worse for the JC not better. This appeal is a good example of how a hearing isn’t alway necessary.
The hearing video is available at https://youtu.be/Im_m-YJkH8k
George, honestly I don’t know how you can say that. A good portion was dedicated to the executive session issue.
What a participant hears and what an outside observer hears can be quite different. There was some discussion of it, to be sure.
There was much more related to the length of notice, but most of that was from the appellant.
An mp3 would be helpful. I listen to Reason podcasts and legal stuff while walking the dog. Lots of stuff gets clearer if you hear it several times.
I can’t help you with that. Sorry.
It is up on Lpedia.
Thank you very much for your live blogging! Unfortunately, I was busy today and had to miss the hearing.
As outlined in my amicus brief to a previous but related case, the executive session clearly violated the bylaws and policy manual. Hopefully the JC upholds the bylaws and doesn’t let the LNC continue to ignore them. I look forward to reading the JC opinions on this topic.
The executive session issue was almost completely ignored by both sides. One JC member fixated on the idea that the 2022 convention might have amended the bylaws by inserting into it a section of Roberts. He kept asking the same question or variation thereupon over and over again. Much of the discussion was abstract argumentation about Roberts that had little to do with the actual issues at hand.
The bylaws do permit executive session in some cases. The rule, which covered testimony and deliberation, as potential litigation, is consistent with the bylaws. There is a very long list of what is not covered.