[Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 21:26:51 EDT 2016 

Joshua has the right of it IMHO and perfectly summed up the issues I
observed

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm going to largely agree with Caryn here.  First, I can say from
> first-hand experience that our current system is nerve-wracking.  A
> verifiable electronic system would be far better.
>
> Second, we need an agenda that matches times better.  I personally would
> suggest (although I know it risks restarting the explosion of convention
> committees) having a Program Committee separate from our COC.
>
> Next, we need to find ways to speed up business.  An important step would
> be having a quorum more of the time.  That can happen if we modify the
> order of business.  As suggested by RONR, hold party elections early on,
> and have things like Presidential nominations last.  Even if we continue to
> have delegates only showing up for the nomination, they would credential in
> late and not interfere with quorum.  We also need - and this is harder to
> get - a higher percentage of delegates who actually are on the floor for
> party business.  We can encourage affiliates to consider this in seating
> delegates, and we can incline our messaging and marketing in that way.
> There are costs to doing so, however.  At present, we do a lot to aid
> people in finding out-of-state seats.  This uses staff time prior to the
> convention, produced at least one less than desirable outcome, and makes it
> harder to attain quorum, particularly if those people turn out to be
> "nomination and done" delegates.
>
> We could, possibly, start earlier, and instead of punishing our donors,
> have a donor dinner instead.  I don't know if that is feasible, and I am
> sure that the COC did what they thought best, so I don't want to seem like
> I'm Monday morning quarterbacking.  I do very much appreciate that we
> didn't interrupt business with main floor speakers.
>
> As to approval voting, I think the question to ask about a voting method
> is the outcomes it produces and which fairness criteria it fails, not how
> long it takes.  Personally, I find something awkward about multi-round
> approval voting, particularly if write-ins are allowed, and would prefer
> disapproval voting, but I don't find it terrible.  I like the fairness
> pattern of approval voting for the context in which we use it - multi-seat
> elections for internal party office.  I agree that approval voting is not
> "liable" for us not electing a full group - that falls back to limited
> time.  After all, if the same election were conducted under the system we
> previously used, the only result would have been less total votes cast, and
> hence less people over the line.
>
> It is also true that, convention after convention, we find ourselves
> cutting the time for our party elections.  Populating our board, and the
> group permitted to overturn decisions of our board, is very important, in
> my opinion, and requires due consideration.  We seldom give it the time it
> deserves, and we end up with delegates voting without knowing the
> candidates well, if at all.  Now, candidates can combat this, and many did,
> by campaigning ahead of time, but it still, in my opinion, sends a bad
> message when delegates see all the rush-rush-rush-hurry-up-get-it-done
> about this decision.
>
> Luckily, though, we have committees we can thrust these decisions onto.
>
> I don't really understand what is being proposed regarding the JC, but my
> initial inclination is that, unless someone can articulate a reason why the
> JC is different in this way, I prefer not to modify our unit voting rules
> for one election and leave them intact for everything else.  I would be
> inclined to change my mind if presented with a reason why the JC, in
> particular, would profit from election by states and/or regions.
> Otherwise, I say change it for everything or nothing.  I did see an
> argument from Ken that it would mean different constituencies being
> represented, but I can't tell from that why it should be this way and not
> the other way around.
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Indeed and I will fully support your desire to serve on the 2018 Bylaws
>> Committee when it come time to
>> populate it!
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> Sam Goldstein
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> Member at Large
>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larger states would still have a greater share no matter what.  It seems
>>> like based on the same way delegates are allocated would be fair with
>>> regions being able to combine those votes.  States that do not join a
>>> region would have to individually.
>>>
>>> I don't think this is the answer though.  We need to be sure we plan
>>> enough time to do the party business and we need a more efficient way to do
>>> votes.  I personally think Party business should come first.  In election
>>> years the delegates will make sure it gets done because they want to get to
>>> the main event.
>>>
>>> If party business takes a certain amount of time, we need that time.
>>>
>>> The only Bylaws issues I see here are whether or not to keep approval
>>> voting.  And the issue of what happens if the full number of JC is not
>>> elected at convention.  And the problems with approval voting I do not
>>> think are problems with AV but with the outmoded time-consuming way we do
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Sam Goldstein <
>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correct in part, Caryn.  Delegates are also assigned based on POTUS
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just batting around ideas of how to avoid a fiasco like this year
>>>> again, at this time
>>>> I'm wide open to suggestions for the next Bylaws committee to consider.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> Sam Goldstein
>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>> Member at Large
>>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>>>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Top states *already* get more weight by virture of having more
>>>>> delegate spots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','whitneycb76 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that the same as each region having 1 vote?  I assume all 7
>>>>>> votes would be cast for the same candidate...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Sam Goldstein <
>>>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that would give very heavy weight to the top states and smaller
>>>>>>> states would have no say
>>>>>>> in the matter.  Perhaps voting by Region with each region getting 7
>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sam Goldstein
>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>> Member at Large
>>>>>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>>>>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>>>>>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>>>>>>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By national membership allocations?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sam Goldstein <
>>>>>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com');>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ken,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you implement having state delegations elect JC
>>>>>>>>> members?  One state one vote?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One state seven votes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sam Goldstein
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>>> Member at Large
>>>>>>>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>>>>>>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>>>>>>>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>>>>>>>>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Ken Moellman <
>>>>>>>>> ken.moellman at lpky.org
>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ken.moellman at lpky.org');>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A bylaw change will be necessary, and I hope that the Bylaws
>>>>>>>>>> Committee addresses this in 2018. We'll also need a motion to suspend the
>>>>>>>>>> rules to make it take effect immediately rather than at the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> convention. My preferred solution is to dump Approval Voting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Further, I'd like to submit for consideration the idea of having
>>>>>>>>>> the JC elected by state delegations rather than by individual delegates.
>>>>>>>>>> This would create a scenario where different interests are being protected
>>>>>>>>>> than those already protected by the popularly-elected LNC.  I'm open to
>>>>>>>>>> other ideas, but I make this suggestion because I am a strong believer in
>>>>>>>>>> making sure that various levels are representing different interests. (Just
>>>>>>>>>> like the Region Reps also represent different interests than the At-Large
>>>>>>>>>> Reps).
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>>>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-06 13:42, sfdreamer at earthlink.net
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sfdreamer at earthlink.net');> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Forwarding comments from a member on this issue...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>>>>>>                           ((( starchild )))
>>>>>>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>>>>                   RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','RealReform at earthlink.net');>
>>>>>>>>>>                          (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P.S. - On an unrelated matter, another member tells me that he is
>>>>>>>>>> having difficulty reading my emails to the LNC list, that they are coming
>>>>>>>>>> through as strange attachments. Is anyone else subscribed on a read-only
>>>>>>>>>> basis having this trouble with my emails or anyone else's? If you are,
>>>>>>>>>> please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Forwarded Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Carol Moore 4liberty at carolmoore.net
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','4liberty at carolmoore.net');>
>>>>>>>>>> [GrassrootsLibertarians]"
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 3:27 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com');>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Re: [lpradicals] Re:
>>>>>>>>>> [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee
>>>>>>>>>> Fill Vacancies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously the bylaws need changing.  If there should be some
>>>>>>>>>> important decision where the judiciary committee must make an important
>>>>>>>>>> decision, any member might challenge it on the basis of its being vs. the
>>>>>>>>>> bylaws. Including a person who might need a judiciary committee spanking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I feel like doing a straw poll of those names and seeing if there
>>>>>>>>>> is someone most people actively disapprove of.   I know I think one is
>>>>>>>>>> great and another is questionable. So wonder what others would think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It might also help to encourage LNC to have a deadline for
>>>>>>>>>> running for office. Not a deadline for being nominated, but a deadline for
>>>>>>>>>> being listed in a handout sheet, preferably something that goes in the
>>>>>>>>>> delegate package, with a short bio. This would make candidates think more
>>>>>>>>>> seriously about running in advance and give delegates who chose to study
>>>>>>>>>> the list a chance to look at qualifications. It wouldn't just be based on a
>>>>>>>>>> chance meeting with a prospective member, a recommendation from a seat
>>>>>>>>>> mate, or what name sounded coolest to you - or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2016 2:37 PM, Letitia Pepper letitiapepper at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','letitiapepper at yahoo.com');>
>>>>>>>>>> [GrassrootsLibertarians] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I support Starchild's analysis of this problem.  All efforts must
>>>>>>>>>> be made to prevent disenfranchising members.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:20 AM, sfdreamer at earthlink.net
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sfdreamer at earthlink.net');>
>>>>>>>>>> [lpradicals] <lpradicals at yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lpradicals at yahoogroups.com');>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This approach of committees filling their own vacancies without
>>>>>>>>>> regard to convention delegates' preferences on the grounds that only a
>>>>>>>>>> minority of candidates for those vacancies received the affirmative
>>>>>>>>>> approval of a majority of delegates seems ill-advised to me. Failing to
>>>>>>>>>> receive such approval is clearly not the same thing as receiving the
>>>>>>>>>> delegates' active *disapproval*. Nor is there any guarantee that
>>>>>>>>>> subsequently appointed members of a committee would have received majority
>>>>>>>>>> approval at convention. It is possible that one or more individuals
>>>>>>>>>> appointed in this case would have received a lower approval percentage than
>>>>>>>>>> the four next highest vote-getters at the convention had they chosen to
>>>>>>>>>> actively run for seats on the Judicial Committee.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *We seem to have a situation in which a majority of the
>>>>>>>>>> candidates for office receiving the most votes at convention are routinely
>>>>>>>>>> not meeting the 50% threshold required by "approval voting". Thus if the
>>>>>>>>>> method employed by the remaining members of the Judicial Committee in
>>>>>>>>>> proposing to fill the vacancies were to become standard practice, the
>>>>>>>>>> result could be a significant disenfranchisement our membership*.
>>>>>>>>>> it raises the prospect that an individual could have a better chance of
>>>>>>>>>> getting onto a committee by privately expressing his or her interest in
>>>>>>>>>> serving to the existing committee members, than by actually running for the
>>>>>>>>>> position and seeking the approval of convention delegates. I do not think
>>>>>>>>>> LP members anticipated or desired such an outcome when they were convinced
>>>>>>>>>> to adopt approval voting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I therefore urge the members of the Judicial Committee to
>>>>>>>>>> reconsider this decision, and appoint the next four highest vote-getters to
>>>>>>>>>> the four seats in question, as the LNC did in filling the majority of its
>>>>>>>>>> vacancies which were similarly unfilled as a result of m Indeed ost of the
>>>>>>>>>> delegates' choices not receiving more than 50% of the vote. My
>>>>>>>>>> recommendation is not based on any political favoritism toward those
>>>>>>>>>> individuals – with whose identities I am in any case not acquainted – or
>>>>>>>>>> any animus toward Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob
>>>>>>>>>> Latham, all of whom strike me as sound and well-qualified choices. I write
>>>>>>>>>> strictly from the point of view of upholding bottom-up, grassroots
>>>>>>>>>> governance in the Libertarian Party.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>>>>>>                             ((( starchild )))
>>>>>>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>>>>>                           (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-votes at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Jun 3, 2016 8:41 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Remaining Members of
>>>>>>>>>> Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have been asked by a member in my region to inquire:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can someone verify eligibility for the three elected and 4
>>>>>>>>>> appointed members? Specifically, can the " All Judicial Committee members
>>>>>>>>>> shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their
>>>>>>>>>> selection." portion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brett C. Bittner
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> brett at brettbittner.com
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brett at brettbittner.com');>
>>>>>>>>>> 404.492.6524
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
>>>>>>>>>> much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas
>>>>>>>>>> Jefferson
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alicia Mattson <secretary at lp.org
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','secretary at lp.org');>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forwarding a message by request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gary Johnson <sedition at aol.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sedition at aol.com');>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:03 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Remaining Members of Judicial Committee Fill Vacancies
>>>>>>>>>>> To: secretary at lp.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','secretary at lp.org');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> AliciaDearn at bellatrixlaw.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AliciaDearn at bellatrixlaw.com');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> chuck at moulton.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chuck at moulton.org');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> scholar at constitutionpreservation.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','scholar at constitutionpreservation.org');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> jabuttrick at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jabuttrick at gmail.com');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> whall at wnj.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','whall at wnj.com');>,
>>>>>>>>>>> rob at roblatham.pro
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rob at roblatham.pro');>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rebecca.sinkburris at gmail.com');>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Roger Roots <rogerroots at msn.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rogerroots at msn.com');>>, Michael
>>>>>>>>>>> Dixon <dixonconsultinginc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dixonconsultinginc at gmail.com');>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> M Carling <mcarling at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mcarling at gmail.com');>>, John
>>>>>>>>>>> Bowers <bojo3191 at aol.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bojo3191 at aol.com');>>, Michael
>>>>>>>>>>> Kielsky <Michael at krazlaw.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Michael at krazlaw.com');>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> mikeljane <mikeljane at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mikeljane at gmail.com');>>, steven
>>>>>>>>>>> r Linnabary <linnabary51 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','linnabary51 at gmail.com');>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Jim Fulner <jim.fulner at member.fsf.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim.fulner at member.fsf.org');>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Christopher R. Maden" <crism at maden.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','crism at maden.org');>>, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>> Mortenson <jwmort at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jwmort at yahoo.com');>>, Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Stevens <drtomstevens at aol.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','drtomstevens at aol.com');>>, Tom
>>>>>>>>>>> Lippman <tnlippman at juno.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tnlippman at juno.com');>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Alicia Mattson,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please post this message online on the LNC Business list:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only
>>>>>>>>>>> three received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016
>>>>>>>>>>> national convention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the
>>>>>>>>>>> delegates, Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have
>>>>>>>>>>> communicated by email.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have ruled unanimously that, as the "remaining members" of
>>>>>>>>>>> the committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are
>>>>>>>>>>> less than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> filling the vacancies with the next four vote getters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four
>>>>>>>>>>> individuals who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not
>>>>>>>>>>> "disapproved" of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies
>>>>>>>>>>> with Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alicia Dearn
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Moulton
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>>>>> send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lncvotes%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com');>
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> !-->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> !-->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Carol Moore in DChttp://carolmoore.net/http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/http://youtube.com/user/carolmoorehttp://youtube.com/user/carolmooresongshttp://secession.nethttp://stopthewarnow.nethttp://whatwouldgandhido.net
>>>>>>>>>> twitter - carolmoore1776
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOTICE: It is the right of the people
>>>>>>>>>> to alter or abolish government.
>>>>>>>>>> US Declaration of Independence, 1776
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __._,_.___
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Posted by: Carol Moore <4liberty at carolmoore.net
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','4liberty at carolmoore.net');>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reply via web post
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/messages/3043;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMGM2ZW44BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRtc2dJZAMzMDQzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDk4MjA2Mw--?act=reply&messageNum=3043>
>>>>>>>>>> • Reply to sender
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','4liberty at carolmoore.net?subject%5Cx3dRe:+%5BGrassrootsLibertarians%5D+Re:+%5Blpradicals%5D+Re:+%5BLnc-votes%5D+%5BLnc-business%5D+Fwd:+Remaining+Members+of+Judicial+Committee+Fill+Vacancies');>
>>>>>>>>>> • Reply to group
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com?subject%5Cx3dRe:+%5BGrassrootsLibertarians%5D+Re:+%5Blpradicals%5D+Re:+%5BLnc-votes%5D+%5BLnc-business%5D+Fwd:+Remaining+Members+of+Judicial+Committee+Fill+Vacancies');>
>>>>>>>>>> • Start a New Topic
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbnRmNDZxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NjQ5ODIwNjM->
>>>>>>>>>> • Messages in this topic
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/topics/3041;_ylc=X3oDMTM1bTdmaHE3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRtc2dJZAMzMDQzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDk4MjA2MwR0cGNJZAMzMDQx>
>>>>>>>>>> (3)
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Have you tried the highest rated email app?
>>>>>>>>>> <https://yho.com/1wwmgg>
>>>>>>>>>> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated
>>>>>>>>>> email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all
>>>>>>>>>> your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an
>>>>>>>>>> email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Visit Your Group
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZ2NyZHF0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjQ5ODIwNjM->
>>>>>>>>>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmsxZHVvBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDk4MjA2Mw-->
>>>>>>>>>> • Privacy
>>>>>>>>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
>>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','GrassrootsLibertarians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject%5Cx3dUnsubscribe');>
>>>>>>>>>> • Terms of Use
>>>>>>>>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> !-->!-->!-->!-->!------->!---prettyhtmlstart--->!---prettyhtmlendt--->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> !-->!-->
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> !-->!-->!-->!-->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __,_._,___
>>>>>>>>>> !---prettyhtmlend--->!---prettyhtmlstartt--->
>>>>>>>>>> !---prettyhtmlend--->!---prettyhtmlstart---> !-->
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative
>>>>>>>> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>>>>>>> Washington)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> Region 1 Representative
>>>>> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>>>> Washington)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In Liberty,
>>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Region 1 Representative
>>> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>> Washington)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>

-- 
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160607/32840587/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: blocked.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160607/32840587/attachment-0002.gif>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list