[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2

Sun Jul 20 13:31:29 EDT 2014

Thanks.  I hope that electronic meetings will make the conduct of business
easier as well.  In Connecticut, we are quite pleased with the way our
electronic meetings have turned out.  I recently participated in a NY
electronic meeting, and they seemed quite happy with it also.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Joshua,
>
> On the technical questions you raised, there is nothing to stop this body
> from continuing to propose email ballots on a subject (if four members
> co-sponsor them) other than the good sense of the members.  At the same
> time, it is not unusual to have two (or on rare occasions more) competing
> motions, precisely because there is no way to amend an email ballot.  A
> competing motion effectively becomes a motion to amend by substitution.
> It's clunky, but then email balloting is clunky.  It's one of the reasons
> that I pushed the (successful) Bylaws amendment at the convention to allow
> electronic meetings of the LNC and other committees.  We still need to
> experiment with that, but I have hopes it will alleviate the problems you
> mentioned.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I rise (sit) in opposition to this motion.  With the previous motion
>> having been pretty decisively voted on, I think it's unnecessary to
>> continue wordsmithing, I don't think you'll ever get agreement, and that
>> continuing to press the issue will continue to take up this board's time.
>>  Can we at least agree that if this one fails, we're done?
>>
>> (This raises another question I don't understand about email ballots.
>>  While this is not clearly out of order, what if 4 people cosponsored an
>> email ballot that was clearly out of order?  How could a point of order be
>> raised?  I question whether or not this is bringing substantially the same
>> business before the body - but, what is a session when it comes to email
>> ballots?  If we did prohibit bringing the same question before the body,
>> would that mean for 2 years, until any member has changed, until an actual
>> meeting has passed, for 3 months, or what?)
>>
>> Now, as to why I find this more problematic than the previous one
>> presented:  First, the whereas clause that quotes from Robert's the
>> prohibition on changing a decision of the convention suggests, to me at
>> least, that passing this resolution is akin to making the statement that,
>> if we could, we would reverse that decision.  I do not recall the vote
>> totals, but many balloted votes were close - it's at least possible that
>> reversing that decision would have actual implications on the make-up of
>> the LNC.  And that wouldn't be fair for many reasons, not least because the
>> three seated delegates could have been seated elsewhere, so throwing out
>> their votes would discount this strong likelihood.  Anyway, even if RONR
>> said nothing on the subject, I would oppose reversing the decision, and I
>> see the inclusion of this phrase as suggesting otherwise.
>>
>> My second objection is that this motion, before saying that some
>> delegates feel the wrong decision was reached, mentions the vote on the
>> appeal.  The motion by the Chair did not do so, and so did not challenge a
>> decision of the body, but only that of the ex-Chair.  This one directly
>> points to an action of the body.
>>
>> I recognize that in many ways, this motion weakens the previous one, and
>> may be able to gain broader support.  It says less and does less, and so
>> may be less objectionable.  I recognize that it is an attempt to offer an
>> olive branch, and to gain broader consensus on doing so.  I appreciate the
>> effort taken in trying to make something happen on this issue.  I just
>> think that this body has already made a decision.  Further, if we continue
>> to make efforts to bring about an apology that was voted down, I do begin
>> to wonder if we are doing what we think is right, or if we are, in fact,
>> responding to blackmail.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
>> Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>
>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 29, 2014 at 11:59:59pm
>>> Pacific time.*
>>>
>>> *Co-Sponsors:*  Dan Wiener, Vicki Kirkland, Tim Hagan, Guy McLendon
>>>
>>> *Motion:*
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alicia Mattson
>>> LNC Secretary
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *"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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140720/18f5905a/attachment-0002.html>