[Lnc-business] Request for email ballot co-sponsors for Oregon resolution

[Daniel Wiener]

So far I haven't gotten a fourth co-sponsor for my alternate Oregon
resolution.  If there's insufficient interest from the rest of the LNC, so
be it.  But I don't want to leave it hanging out there indefinitely.  So
I'll give it one more day, and if nothing happens by the end of tomorrow,
July 19th (the same time as voting ends on the other Oregon resolution), I
will withdraw my proposed motion and my co-sponsorship of it.  I ask that
the Secretary hereby take official notice of my intention.

Daniel Wiener
Region 4 Representative


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> With two days remaining in the voting, the current count on "Email Ballot
> 2014-08: Oregon Resolution" is 1 Yes vote and 10 No votes.  So it appears
> very unlikely that this resolution will pass.  I would therefore again
> invite co-sponsors for my alternate Oregon resolution (below).  There are
> already three co-sponsors, so one more is needed for an email ballot.
>
> Daniel Wiener
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I move to adopt the following resolution, and request co-sponsors for an
>> email ballot:
>>
>> *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a
>> Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate
>> party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and*
>>
>> *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each
>> state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and
>> these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular
>> Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and *
>>
>> *Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of
>> the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the
>> National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5),
>> and*
>>
>> *Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the
>> Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the
>> Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not
>> describe the details of that dispute, and*
>>
>> *Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to
>> include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and*
>>
>> *Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National
>> Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s
>> ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the
>> assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and*
>>
>> *Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised,
>> which is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in
>> Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of
>> the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of
>> the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577,
>> II. 23-33).”, and *
>>
>> *Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the
>> situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly
>> decided, therefore*
>>
>> *Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National
>> Committee that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party
>> of Oregon.*
>>
>>
>> Daniel Wiener
>> Region 4 Representative
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
> -- Richard Feynman
>



-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140718/5ab0216f/attachment-0002.html>