LNC Debates Inserting Malagon on Credentials Committee

LNC Actions on Motion 20240513-03
Appoint Adrian Malagon as LNC Credentials Committee Representative.

[Editorial note: On comparing this motion with LP Bylaws, it is perhaps noteworthy that there there is no such post as “LNC Credentials Committee Representative” anywhere in the Bylaws.]

LP Secretary wrote on Tuesday, May 14, 2024

We have an email ballot. Votes are due to the LNC Business List on this email thread by 11:59 pm Pacific Time on May 20, 2024.

Co-Sponsors: Haman, Ford, Harlos, Malagon

Motion: Appoint Adrian Malagon as LNC Credentials Committee Representative.

This motion depends upon 20240513-02

Vote Threshold Required: Majority

You can track the progress of votes here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yPeQmj1CzHh4gvSZV7ZoDfXOU3kcdgy2/edit#gid=1638016728

Please advise me of any discrepancies.

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

---

Adrian Malagon voted Aye.

Todd Hagopian voted No.

This type of behavior should not be rewarded with additional roles and responsibilities. And, people who are actively challenging state delegations should not then be made a potential judge in those actions.

---

Adrian Malagon wrote

Mr. Hagopian,

To avoid embarrassing you further, I’ll give you this one opportunity to watch what you say to me or about me moving forward and stand down.

There won’t be second.

Adrian F Malagon

---

LP Secretary wrote

Mr. Malagon is not challenging a state delegation. He has challenged one delegate and any credentials committee member may do so, in fact, when credentialling in making a determination that someone is not eligible, that is what is being done. This was done before any determination was made.

---

Angela McArdle wrote

Several people have asked me privately for a ruling on the validity of this motion but it’s very late at night. I will seek parliamentary advice in the morning.

---

LP Secretary wrote

I can imagine what it is but one motion can be dependent on another. If the earlier does not pass, this one becomes moot by nature. It is not out of order. You can have two motions at the same time, one to accept a resignation, and one to appoint someone to a position. If the resignation is not accepted, the other motion becomes impossible and is simply moot.

Additionally, even if one were to say that were not the case, it is easily cured by simply starting a new ballot on the fully sponsored motion to expire one day later.

I look forward to the ruling of the Chair.

---

Todd Hagopian wrote

I’m sure Adrian threatening another member will go unpunished, again, but it is worth noting that he did so in an email motion nominating himself to be named onto a committee.

You all can’t be serious – vote no on this motion

---

Adrian Malagon wrote

Todd,

Apparently, asking you to take the high ground was too much of an ask. Since you were seemingly unable to purchase the ladder you would need to join me despite your newfound wealth, I suppose we shouldn’t hold our breath for that donation to make up for all of the shortcomings we experienced as a result of your “service” on this Board.

I know you’re upset about all of the hobbit parallels, and I apologize. I didn’t realize dwarfs get so testy (or whatever your equivalent is) when they’re misidentified.

Adrian F Malagon

LP Secretary wrote

Subject: Re: EMAIL BALLOT 20240513-03 Appoint new LNC Credentials Rep

On the subject of the ballot I welcome personal calls. Our appointees serve at our pleasure and with our vision of getting things done. I don’t expect everyone to do the amount of frenetic work I do but I’ve been to these meetings and getting appointed isn’t a golden ticket – I’ve watched and talked with our appointees and been to many meetings and read every email. I apologize who this offends but it gives me some right to an opinion. Members of the public were wrongly kept out of meetings, including myself, by our own appointees! others things I will not discuss here. We have an absolute responsibility to get this committee ruthlessly on track and second guessing from the sidelines is anyone’s right I guess, but I’ve been there, I know what needs to be done in the TEN DAYS prior and support these motions.

We can bicker over personalities and mean emails. I’m not. We have a job to do and someone who will help keep things on track. You don’t have to like Adrian. I don’t care. I care about getting this together FAST. There was literally a twenty or more minute debate about THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE ten days out!!!!!!!!!! We have a responsibility in our apppointees to get the job done.

I was there. Send Adrian a severed horse head or something. But vote yes on these so we can help things move.

You also (the metaphorical you not anyone in particular) don’t have to like me. But I am an LNC member who has certain expectations of our appointees and when not met, I’m going to remediate.

My phone is open.

---

LP Secretary wrote

One severed horse head on its way.

Mark Tuniewicz wrote Hard no.

Mr Malagon has demonstrated a temperament and personal style that is inconsistent with service on the Credentials Committee.

He has also repeatedly indicated that he will not be present at our national convention where service on that committee is the most important.

Further, passing this motion gives additional fuel to the pending derivative lawsuit against us.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

With best wishes

Mark Tuniewicz

---

Adam Haman wrote Yes

---

Steven Nekhaila wrote

With all due respect to my colleague Adrian, I am voting no unless I know that Adrian will be attending convention in DC, which I think is necessary for this committee especially now that we are down to the wire. I served as an alt for credentials a few conventions ago and it was necessary to be on site.

---

Angela McArdle wrote

I was asked if this removal motion is in order, or if more explicit cause needs to be stated.
After consulting with a parliamentarian, yes, it is in order.

A few more notes:
It is a demotion to alternate, not strict removal.
I am going to reach out to Credentials Committee members to discuss this conflict at length & try to de-escalate things. I have already spoken to Jessica. I believe Mr. Malagon and our Secretary have genuine concerns about credentialing. We need to address their concerns, and also try not to blow things up right before convention, if possible. I appreciate everyone’s hard work. I know this is stressful.

---

Mark Tuniewicz wrote

Madame Chair,

Since you did not address the specific point of order I raised (citing specific language from our policy manual), I appeal your ruling that this motion is in order.

The proposed motion continues to be in conflict with the policy manual.

With best wishes

Mark Tuniewicz
Region 6 Representative

---

Angela McArdle wrote

I saw your point of order after I made comments here. I intended to address your point of order separately. It will probably take me a couple more hours. I’m moving as quickly as possible.

---

Meredith Hays wrote

I vote yes

---

LP Secretary wrote My yes vote yesterday got somehow lost in the ether.