Last updated on February 24, 2025
Welcome to the live blog. People are logging in.
Meeting starts on time. There were minor computer issues.
The relevant link is https://us02web.zoom.us/w/81779086631?tk=lJZcj1mNLfCju_UrIt_TfOYCiBL0ufCKwsK49NTfaWg.DQcAAAATCmnVJxZIVWFrSHMyUVJ5MkpheDV3X2xiYTNBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&pwd=KEY6v7mt5A2elsIuRdO3VzjnrKrPUh.1 or so I am advised in a post by Mr. Montoni.
Computer issues healed by 3:05. Chair announces the agenda. Seebeck moves to amend the Agenda to allow the LNC Chair to update the committee on the public list. Jami van Alstine presents for the appellant. Andrew Chadderdon presents for the LNC. Nekhaila permitted to speak. He reports that the old business list will be published; staff is working on it.
van Alstine: Appeal targets deletion of old business list and conduct of most business in private. She lists asserted bylaws violations that affect every member. The details of business have been hidden from the membership. Committee discussion has been moved to private. Transparency of electronic messaging is central.LNC has violated the bylaws, just as if it did all business in executive session. Secrecy prevents oversight by the membership.
Krawchuk reminds that the LNC is a DC corporation subject to DC law.
Chadderdon claims that neither appeal has merit. He says that the LNC properly was allowed to close the electronic business list. He says that Article 13 is satisfied; it indicates how electronic voting is conducted. He says that Article 13 overrides Article 7 on conducting business.
Tarnoff objects to Chadderdon reading his brief. Krawchuk says Chadderdon has a right to use his ten minutes. Tarnoff asks for a vote. Krawchuk is sustained roughly 6-1.
Chadderdon claims that article 7 does not apply to electronic business.
Meeting is interrupted by lunatic. Chadderdon claims that bylaws on electronic votes override article 7 completely. Claims that email discussions are not meetings and are not subject to article 7. Claims that DC Laws on records are not applicable because Judicial Committee may only consider bylaws. Chadderdon says members need not hear the debate to hold LNC Member accountable.
Latham: There is a claim that debate is not an action under Roberts.
Van Alstine: If discussion is not debate, what is debate. We are playing with words. Debate is a part of business along with motions.
Chadderdon: Debate is an action of a member, not an action of the body. These are different. Only committee actions need to be public.
Robson: Part of the motion is the deliberative process.An electronic motion should under Roberts be as close as possible to a meeting.
Question if LNC must obey DC laws. Answer was yes.
Harlos: The word ‘action’ was added to the vote rule, so ‘action’ is not a vote.
Chadderdon notes DC Corporate Code requires LNC keeping records but does not say they must be revealed.
They are arguing whether various Bylaws sections contradict each other. Robson: Debate is an action of the body.
Chadderdon: Email ballots are not sessions of the LNC. DC Law does not expand the disclosure requirements.
Latham:Is there a difference between our bylaws speaking to actions and the DC Corporate code on actions.
Chadderdon: We keep a record of the discussion, accessible to LNC members, but that does not mean that public members can see it.
Van Alstine notes a recent Third Party Watch report that a motion to seat Mr. Brady of Texas as an at -large rather than Mr. Malagon. Chadderdon says that the motion was ruled out of order so it was never published on the public list. He claims this is consistent with the bylaws.
Robson: The motion was fully sponsored but was ruled out of order. The membership should have been aware of the motion.
Harlos: What Chadderdon said is inaccurate, but I cannot tell you in what respect.
Chadderdon says that matter was handled properly, but the Chair decision could be appealed to the JC.
Robson: LNC Secretary cannot tell you what happened because the debate is secret.
Kinsella–no questions.
Tarnoff–Was data lost? Van Alstine: Our issue is that there is a list that is (currently) unavailable.
Tarnoff–There appears to be a debate about policy. Policy is not under Judicial Committee purview; Bylaws are under JC purview.
Tarnoff–what is your claimed bylaws violation? van Alstine: The Bylaws requires all votes and actions (a few exceptions) be public. The LNC position violates the Bylaws.
Tarnoff asks if the LNC has video conferences–electronic meetings. Chadderdon lists how the LNC meets. He clarifies that electronic votes are revealed while they are in progress, not just after debate has concluded. Repeats claim that email ballots are not a session so the debate need not be made public. Says that the appellants are simply complaining about a policy that they do not like.
Tarnoff — is the LNC complying with the bylaws in in-person meetings? van Alstine: Yes. Tarnoff: How about the electronic meetings that Mr. Chadderdon mentioned? van Alstine: Yes. Robson: We are asserting the there is a bylaws violation on electronic votes.
Tarnoff asks Chadderdon if email ballots are debated. Chadderdon says that there can be debate on the email thread if 2/3 of the members agree. What is put out to the members is the vote. Repeats his position that the LNC electronic ballots are not sessions.
Tarnoff: Is the LNC hanging its hat on the claim that the word session in the Bylaws is the same as the word session in the Bylaws? Chadderdon: Yes, at some length.
Tarnoff: Are you conducting votes by email ballot? Bylaws 7 says all votes must be conducted in open session. Chadderdon: Article 13 overrides Article 7. Article 13 was meant to allow votes to be conducted other than in a session, so 7 does not apply.
Tarnoff: Are you saying that the delegates intended to create a loophole permitting secret meetings other than in executive session. Chadderdon: That’s a loaded question. There is a question as to whether or not 7.15 bars all electronic votes. Claims 7.15 only applies to in person and video meetings.
Tarnoff: Can we construe 7.15 and 13 together in a consistent way that does not bar electronic ballots? Chadderdon: I see no way to do this.
Tarnoff appears to be trying to persuade Chadderdon to change his mind about his position.
Tarnoff asks appellants if posting debate to a read-only list would satisfy the Bylaws. Harlos: Policy requiring 2/3 of members to allow debate violates bylaws. Members had seen the process of public debate on evotes from 2014 to 2020 and assumed that this was the valid process. If a motion is made and does not get 4 cosponsors, it is not seen in public and therefore members cannot petition their representatives to second the motion. The appellants would be satisfied by restoring the process followed until October 2023.
Chadderdon denies that current process constitutes a bylaws violation. He refers to Michigan where Harlos supported him in saying that the word of the bylaws are all that matter.
Krawchuk: We are only here to settle the bylaws issue, not to solve the LNCs problem for them.
Chadderdon: Claims that the LNC adopted its rule because the old rules obstructed the LNC’s business. Says he is here to defend the current process as being consistent with the bylaws.
Van Alstine: There is no ambiguity between 7.15 and 13. 13 only sets the asynchronous process for conducting a vote under 7.14.
Krawchuk: what is on the email? Chadderdon: The email motion states who the cosponsors are and a later email says who voted each way. No one has used the policy provision permitting debate. Members supporting motions have lobbied privately, but there has not been debate. van Alstine: The new policy has killed debate on the LNC. Prior to the rule, there was debate. Robson: If there is no debate, what is the objection to putting the material on a public list. Saying there is no debate does not show there is no debate. Members cannot see if the claim is true.
Chadderdon: Public list was used by members to grandstand their positions. This hindered out activities. The LNC is responsible for conducting the party’s business. We had a 10-4-1 vote to adopt this rule.
Seebeck: Q for Chadderdon: Why is there so much of an adamancy for all the secrecy. We are run by the members, who delegate authority to the LNC. Technical issues aside, why are we cutting off the memebrs. Chadderdon: Members do not have the right to have that information.
Seebeck: We have seen the LNC try to secret in the past. It leaked like a sieve. The membership rejects the secrecy approach. the history of the party contradicts. Chadderdon: Nothing is being held in secret. Nothing is being debated. Claims that the appeal violates the rights of the members by making the bylaws obscure.
Stratton: I have seven pages of questions. Fortunately, they have almost all been answered. How are email votes conducted? Member sends email. Votes recorded. I am done.
Seebeck reads questions from Montoni: 1) Why were there no consequences is there was data loss? Chadderdon: Believes that no information has actually been lost. Montoni: Can members actually petition their members and influence them? Montoni asserts that appeal 1 is not mooted until the issue is completely fixed.
Question of when motions are being posted. Through mid-January motions were only revealed when voted upon. Also, there was debate. Chadderdon: only the final vote is required for bylaws transparency. During-vote public revelations are not required to be known.
Latham asks if the challenged provision is procedural? Harlos: The delegates believed that the 2014-2020 process was valid. We should honor what the membership wanted. The JC should honor their wishes.
Latham returns to the question is the email rule is a procedural or a nonprocedural action. Much time wasted on this discussion.
FINAL STATEMENTS
Appellant (Van Alstine): This ap0peal is about Bylaws compliance. Article 13 is purely procedural. The process since 2014 was never challenged at a convention. It is about our party’s support of transparency. The JC should order everything including debate to be returned to the public list.
LNC (Chadderdon) I shall reiterate that the actions of the LNC are consistent with the Bylaws and with Roberts. Electronic votes are not conducted in a session. Claims that members have full access to the business of the LNC during the debate. Defends the LNC decision as sound practice.
Meeting adjourned.
The motions and votes are not secret. Only debate is not public and nothing prevents a member from posting his comments on another website.
Hi George, I did want to add that I corrected myself in the meeting on an inaccurate statement I said. The Policy Manual section on email votes is fairly new, and I misread one section, and during the meeting when I realized my mistake publicly corrected the record.
Now that we have seen embezzlement, and a push for unbridled secrecy among the LNC, I wonder if the JC regrets carrying water for them all summer long when we were pushing back on agreements they signed without ever seeing them and bylaws being ignored at will.