[Lnc-business] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors

[Alicia Mattson]

Well this has gotten messy.  Welcome to the world of email ballots.  This
is the tip of the iceberg for why RONR 11th ed., in the footnote on page 1
states, "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in
writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile
transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making
decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law
will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable."

At this point I need clarity for who wants what, and perhaps the
co-sponsors wish to re-think how you want this to happen and maybe
restructure your motion to achieve that.

There was Version A with the "Libertarian Party" terminology, which didn't
make it to 4 co-sponsors and was essentially withdrawn by Ms. Harlos in
order to put forth Version B.

Version B was Version A but with "Libertarian National Committee"
terminology instead of "Libertarian Party".  Version B clearly has Katz,
Hayes, Goldstein as co-sponsors.  Harlos and Vohra see below.

Then Version C is Starchild's amendment of Version B.  Version C has
Starchild.  Harlos, Vohra, and Demarest see below.

If the motions aren't restructured, then I need some final-answer type
clarity in a few places:

1)  Vohra - You said you'd co-sponsor either.  Do you mean you're going to
pick one that is your favorite, or you want to co-sponsor BOTH
simultaneously?

2)  Demarest - Twice you have said that you'll vote in favor of Version C,
but voting in favor is a different action from co-sponsoring.  I think you
probably mean co-sponsor, but I need precise language to make sure.  Do you
wish to co-sponsor the motion, or you're waiting for others to co-sponsor
and then you will vote in favor?

3)  Harlos - I need a final answer, as you have changed your mind several
times.  Without digging back through the chain, working off my
perhaps-not-precise-but-close memory it went something like this:  you
co-sponsored B, liked C but stuck with co-sponsoring B, co-sponsored both,
withdrew co-sponsorship of B, then co-sponsored "either".  As with Mr.
Vohra, when you say "either" do you mean you're willing to co-sponsor
whichever one is perceived to be the winner somehow, or you intend to
co-sponsor both simultaneously?

But don't answer yet!  Wait, there's more!  Your answers to the above may
be moot if you decide to restructure the whole situation.  There are
several ways this could be done, including:

A)  The way they are currently phrased, Version C is an amendment to
Version B.  That means that we'd need 4 co-sponsors of Version B, and 4
co-sponsors of Version C.  We run two email ballots with Version B starting
on one day and Version C on the next day as an
amend-something-previously-adopted.  If Version B is adopted, then the next
day we find out if Version C successfully amended Version B or whether
Version B stays as is.  If Version B fails, then Version C becomes out of
order because it can't amend something that wasn't previously adopted.

B)  If you want a chance to pick between B vs. C situation, and then vote
on the winner of that contest, you need to re-phrase your motions.  This is
sorta like a substitution would be in a face-to-face meeting.  First you
would need a motion that we choose either B or C (but C rephrased as a
stand-alone motion rather than a strikeout/insert amendment to B) to become
the next mail ballot to consider for adoption.  We vote B vs. C and
whichever one wins that duel is then offered as a separate email ballot.

C)  We run two email ballots simultaneously.  One is version B.  The other
is how B would look if amended by C.  Maybe both fail.  Maybe both pass.
Maybe one passes and the other fails.

Perhaps some of you talk offline to get aligned on which approach to take
and then give me 4 clear co-sponsors for that.

-Alicia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160810/4ee08f6e/attachment-0001.html>