Point of parliamentary procedure, Senator...

Senator, you have recently gone on the record as considering the suggestion that you delay your formal acceptance of the Democratic nomination for a time, in order to avoid having to dip into the general election public funding a month before President Bush. While I am sure that you have been well-advised on this matter, please permit me to point out that while (and to the best of my knowledge) The Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States does not explicitly address this issue, Section 14 indicates that

In the absence of other provisions, Robert's Rules of Order (as most recently revised) shall govern the conduct of all Democratic Party meetings.

I happen to have a copy of Robert's Rules of Order with me - a very old copy (1951, Seventy-fifth Anniversary Edition), to be sure, but it's the only one I have handy and I'm willing to take the risk that it has since changed. I refer you to Section 27(e) of that worthy tome, page 103 in the 1951 edition:

In most organization members cannot be compelled to accept office or perform any duties not required by the by-laws, and therefore they have the right to decline office. But if a member does not immediately decline, by his silence he accepts the office and is under obligation to perform the duty until there is a reasonable opportunity for his resignation to be accepted. (All italics mine)

...this would, I think, make your nomination vote 'unfinished business'. In that case, I would also remind you of Section 17(c) (page 64):

When the adjournment closes a session in an assembly which does not meet as often as quarterly, or when the assembly is an elective body, and this session ends the term of a portion of the members, the adjournment puts a permanent end to all business unfinished at the close of the session. The business may be introduced at the next session, the same as if it had never been before the assembly.

Your opinion on these two points of order is respectfully requested. For that matter, a link to a more recent copy of Robert's would also be deemed link-from-the-reference-sidebar worthy.

Moe

PS: The Democrat who lives in my basement has gently reminded me that parliamentary rules aside, the DNC will do as they think best for their party (she also thinks that Kerry's making a mild tactical error here, but that's a different issue). True enough... but it's still a can of worms. I would think that Senator Kerry's major strategy for the convention would be to go in, get the nomination, demonstrate that he controls the party and get out clean. This new scenario? It's more complex. 'More complex' usually translates to 'needs procedural votes'. Procedural votes can get messy, especially when people have axes to grind. Any of those going to be delegates to Boston, you think?

On the other hand, stuff about the Democrat convention is actually a touch more interesting for the moment, which may be all that was intended. If so, I don't actually mind; I'm a political blogger, writing about this is what we do. Besides, it's not like I have a real life or anything.

Comments

[Dave Schuler]

Although it does bring up an interesting question. Can organizations be legally held to follow their own by-laws? I have a very vague recollection that they can.

Any legal types have an informed response?

[Dave Schuler]

Aren't by-laws an enforceable contract? Then there's the question of standing.

[sidereal]

It seems to be bodies can and very often do opt out of various Robert's Rules whenever it suits them. Although I don't have a copy and have never read it (and it brings me pleasure to tell you I likely never will), there's apparently some kind of suspensions clause.

That aside, this is a bad PR idea. But maybe the ability to spend 20 to 30 million will make up for the PR hit.

[Anarch]

Regardless of monetary considerations, I think it's a bad idea and it sets a bad precedent. Besides, Kerry's already having trouble painting himself as "tough on defense" and wussing out so obviously to Bush's money isn't going to help matters. Suck it up and deal, JFK2.

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's all just a dastardly ploy on the part of the DNC to fuel the raging RNC rumour-mill to the effect that Hillary's still considering candidacy.