Proposed Amendment #4 - Add text “ECPC sanctions shall not apply…”

General Assembly 2022 Mini-Assembly Amendments
1

Update 6/14: This Amendment didn’t receive sufficient support to advance.

Proposer: Dick Burkhart, Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane

Text of Amendment to Bylaw Rule Change G-9.13.10:

ECPC sanctions shall not apply to exploratory or petition gathering activities prior to campaign organizational meetings or fundraising. Subsequently, however, any candidates adjudicated to be in serious violation of applicable Bylaw rules under Section 9.13 [Rule G9.13.6(c)] may be recommended for removal [have their names removed] from the ballot. [Any such action pursuant to rule G-9.13.10(c) shall be reported to the Board and to the General Assembly.] Such [adjudication] a recommendation by the ECPC shall [would] be received as an [subject to] automatic appeal [review] by the Board Executive Committee according to the provisions of Rule G-9.13.10(d).

Reads as: “ECPC sanctions shall not apply to exploratory or petition gathering activities prior to campaign organizational meetings or fundraising. Subsequently, however, any candidates adjudicated to be in serious violation of applicable Bylaw rules under section 9.13 may be recommended for removal from the ballot. Such a recommendation by the ECPC shall be received as an automatic appeal to the Board Executive Committee according to the provisions of Rule G-9.13.10(d).”

Rationale: (1) This wording clarifies the confusion as to who is deemed to be a candidate for an office, hence subject to ECPC rules and sanctions, and who is not. These trigger events – campaign organizational meetings and fundraising – are common in jurisdictions across the United States. Most potential candidates conduct exploratory activities (usually personal consultations, or signature gathering in certain cases), before deciding to initiate an actual campaign.

(2) Since the appeal of a candidate’s removal is automatic, it should not take effect or be publicized until after the appeal. This is a simple matter of fairness to the candidate in case the Board Executive Committee should reverse the removal or recommend some alternative measure.

2

I do not support this amendment as it vastly strays from the intent of the original bylaw rule change. The proposed changes should be brought up on their own merits and not piggy-backed on top of a simple cleanup effort.
– Juan Carlos Flores, UU Church of Long Beach, CA

3

I think this amendment is not in order, because it doesn’t just address the part of the bylaws that are being revised already, but attempts to substantially change another part of the bylaws. This should not be allowed under our process.

4

This amendment addresses important issues with the lines proposed for revision by the Board - (1) the lack of clarity over who is an official candidate, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the ECPC, (2) and the lack of fairness of the public reporting of a “serious violation”, with ballot removal, which could be shortly reversed or modified by the Board Executive Committee.