[Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

Tue Jul 5 20:29:04 EDT 2016

Caryn Ann,

If you're under the impression that all LNC members send all their thoughts
to the LNC list, you're going to be disappointed.  ;-)  Having a right to
debate doesn't equate to having an obligation to do so.

-Alicia

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Alicia, that is true, but no one has done that at this point, so I can go
> only by my present perceptions and what is said, because, as you say, we
> are not mind-readers.  You are the only one that voted no at that time.  I
> have a sense why everyone else voted yes.  Some of that sense is explicit
> by comments made and some of it is intuitive (yes, highly subjective on the
> second count).  And if something has changed, then that argument can be
> made.  If not, I ask for consistency.
>
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <CAH>  Thank you for your well-reasoned response.  And yes, you voted no,
>> and are being consistent with your prior position.  And my argument is for
>> everyone else to be consistent with theirs. </CAH>
>>
>> I don't agree that everyone else who participated in that vote in Orlando
>> should be dubbed as "inconsistent" if they vote for someone other than the
>> next-place-finisher this time.  Not being mind readers, you and I don't
>> know the reasons for their decision at the time.  It could have been that
>> the next three are who they would have voted for anyway.  It could have
>> been motivated by something other than the reasoning you used.  Perhaps
>> they disagree that the circumstances now are the same as they were then.
>> Perhaps a point has now been made that they didn't consider before, and
>> people are allowed to change their minds and do something different the
>> next time.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your well-reasoned response.  And yes, you voted no, and
>>> are being consistent with your prior position.  And my argument is for
>>> everyone else to be consistent with theirs.  A few short comments so as not
>>> to keep rehashing.
>>>
>>> Re: Robert's:  Robert's is correct as far as it goes.  But I am not
>>> suggesting this "less than majority" is a rule but rather a method we
>>> already employed for several good reasons, which reasons still exist
>>> presently.  Of course voting until the majority is the way it was
>>> intended, but it is not the candidates' or the delegates' fault that they
>>> were denied that opportunity.  We cannot know how things might have turned
>>> out differently because party elections got the short shrift.  And we
>>> should be in an agony to ensure that never happens again.
>>>
>>> Re: Large field of candidates:  Yes.  Those people chose to run.   About
>>> six weeks ago.  If people are considered outside of that pool, why didn't
>>> they care to run and be subject to delegate approval?
>>>
>>> Re: 418 out of 1018 delegates at high point:  I find those numbers
>>> irrelevant.  The other 600 chose to leave or not participate.
>>>
>>> Re: Bennett resignation:  A resignation nearly a year later, after
>>> multiple meetings, and not after an election in which the delegates were
>>> denied the full opportunity to vote is not comparable.
>>>
>>> Re: the JC: They chose differently, and while that was their right, I
>>> would have chosen differently.  And there is a big difference between the
>>> JC, who had no control over planning the convention, using this method
>>> rather than the LNC who *could* (again not saying that happened here, we
>>> are talking about possibilities and appearances) just ensure there is no
>>> time for elections and thus choose a good portion of their own number
>>> rather the delegates.
>>>
>>> Re: Chair talking points:  I would submit that was a normative statement
>>> that doesn't overrule the situation here, but the Chair certainly should
>>> keep his promises if he believes that is applicable here.  I do not think
>>> this was the kind of situation envisioned.
>>>
>>> I think there is one good argument against using the "next in line"
>>> here, and I gave it in my last message.
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding filling the at-large vacancy, you may recall that even in the
>>>> post-convention LNC meeting I disagreed that we were somehow obligated to
>>>> seat the next three for the vacancies.  We were in a rush, and I was tired,
>>>> so I didn't elaborate much, but I will now.
>>>>
>>>> The authorship team of Robert's Rules doesn't have a stake in our
>>>> internal politics.  They study organizational design and write rules for
>>>> what things they have found to be optimal for governance of a generic
>>>> organization.  Robert's has strong cautions against plurality elections.
>>>> Spanning pages 404-405 you will find:
>>>>
>>>> "A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any
>>>> candidate or proposition when three or more choices are [page 405]
>>>> possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of
>>>> votes has a plurality. A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a
>>>> proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule
>>>> previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers,
>>>> it must be prescribed in the bylaws. A rule that a plurality shall elect is
>>>> unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization."
>>>>
>>>> If the LNC members use plurality-ranking logic to decide who to vote
>>>> for, the same caution would apply.  The most recommended option in RONR is
>>>> multiple rounds of voting until someone receives a majority.  Multiple
>>>> rounds of voting allow delegates to adjust due to changing circumstances,
>>>> particularly when there is such a large field of candidates.
>>>>
>>>> In real life, I have seen many, many situations in which the two
>>>> next-ranking-shy-of-majority candidates were either tied or very close to
>>>> each other, but when a direct runoff was held between those two, a VERY
>>>> clear preference was found for one of the candidates over the other.
>>>>
>>>> The at-large results have a tight field in the next-ranked list.  I
>>>> don't find that 30-ish% of the 418 ballots cast from a pool of 1018
>>>> delegates seated at some point should be equated with having received a
>>>> majority vote.  Had a runoff been possible, it might very well have given
>>>> us a different ranking.
>>>>
>>>> Seat-the-next-ranked wasn't the philosophy used by the LNC (some of
>>>> those members are on again this term) to fill the LNC Secretary vacancy
>>>> when Ruth Bennett resigned in early 2013.  (See the email ballots
>>>> documented in the Secretary's report in the March 2013 minutes.)  It wasn't
>>>> the approach used by the Judicial Committee this year, either.
>>>>
>>>> If LNC members feel the next-ranking also happens to be the one they
>>>> think is best suited for the job, they can vote for that person.  A
>>>> convention runoff might have gotten that person to a majority, or it might
>>>> not have.
>>>>
>>>> If I'm not mistaken, when our Chair first ran for the position in 2014,
>>>> one of the campaign talking points under the banner of transparency was
>>>> that no vacancies would be filled without advertising the position to
>>>> solicit applicants.  That recollection is the reason for my message saying
>>>> I assumed that would be the process here.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Sam Goldstein <
>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Alicia.  I know the Chair is planning to place the At Large
>>>>> opening on the agenda for the next LNC meeting.  Since I will be
>>>>> unable to attend, I'd prefer to address this matter in an e-mail
>>>>> ballot following discussion and nominations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our precedent is to look to the At Large voting at the convention and
>>>>> to take the delegate's stated preferences to heart when filling
>>>>> vacancies of this nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Live Free,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will we be publishing something to advertise the vacancy and invite
>>>>>> applicants?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm putting together a proposed agenda for the July 17 meeting in Las
>>>>>>> Vegas.  I am already planning to include time for discussion of
>>>>>>> filling the At-Large vacancy created by Dr. Feldman's death,
>>>>>>> population of the Audit Committee, and discussion of creating a
>>>>>>> national reregistration week (at the request of Mr. Somes).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have other items that you would like to add to the proposed
>>>>>>> agenda, please email me with a description and the amount of time you
>>>>>>> would like on the agenda.  As a reminder, we will only be having a
>>>>>>> one-day meeting in Las Vegas, so we will need to be efficient with
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> time.  To that end, we will have a working lunch brought in so as to
>>>>>>> avoid losing committee members for that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160705/bfd27258/attachment-0002.html>