Bohler Raises Points of Order to LNC on SIC Report, Appointments

Chair Nekhaila,

I believe there are breaches of order of a continuing nature (RONR 23.6) and I am raising two points of order in regards to the LNC meetings on June 9th and August 10th.  I’m not interested in rehashing the merits, but I want to ensure correctness beyond a reasonable doubt and prevent future challenges.

At the June 9th meeting, two resolutions were adopted (regarding fitness for roles in the party and seeking recovery of funds).  These were original main motions under RONR.

LNC Policy Manual §1.02.1 requires that original main motions be either announced at a prior session with their purport entered into the minutes, or circulated with complete text by email at least 5 days before the meeting.

Neither of those requirements were satisfied.  The agenda notice of item “Adoption of Motions Appurtenant to SIC Report” did not include complete text.

Notice rules are there to protect absentee members, and actions in violation of those rules are null and void (RONR 23.6(e)).

I understand that a point of order was made by Mr. Chadderdon during the meeting, and now this is the subject of a JC appeal.  Because this would be a breach of a continuing nature, the point of order can be made again. Although this could be ruled dilatory, I wanted to add my voice in agreement with Mr. Bost, Mr. Chadderdon, Mr. Dassing, Mr. Weir, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Watkins on the point of order that was made in order to give the committee another chance at addressing the procedural issue so we can stop fighting over it.

For the August 10th meeting, the notice read “Move to appoint Jessi Cowart to the FSC.”  During the meeting, that motion was amended to have Doug Knebel fill another vacancy on the same committee.  The amended motion appointing them both was passed.  I was one of the ayes in fact.  That being said, I remember Mr. Martin bringing up a concern on notice (although he said it might be germane) and I decided to review our policy manual and RONR due to a nagging feeling he might be right.  Although I agree the amendment was germane to an extent, I don’t believe it was enough to be within the notice requirement.  The notice was for a specific person to fill a specific vacancy.  This was another person for another vacancy.  Although they were both for the FSC, making it seem germane, they were in fact separate appointments, and Mr. Knebel’s would have needed to be properly noticed.  Had the notice read “Move to fill vacancies on the FSC,” then the adopted motion could have been in order, but the specificity of the actual notice precludes it. Because the motion was adopted as amended, both appointments become invalid.

I apologize if anyone feels this is dilatory, as that is not my intent.  By addressing these points of order now, we can prevent further appeals and stop the in-fighting over these procedural issues.  I believe we need to hold ourselves to a high standard so there is no question about the fairness or legitimacy of this committee’s actions.