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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Alicia you are amazing.  I will take a look at this tomorrow and let you
know my thoughts.

I am sorry I changed my mind several times and I know this is a source of
confusion and even frustration but I am pretty averse to talking off-list
as I feel pretty strongly that most negotiating should be in full view of
members like an actual meeting and that involves evolving views in full
view and the painful (and sometimes embarrassing) learning curve of being a
new member to this Body.

I have spoken a bit offline to have some sense of where people are at but I
would like to know the answers to the questions you posed to other members
so I ask Arvin and David to clarify though I believe I understand their
intentions.

Again Alicia thank you- sincerely.



On Wednesday, August 10, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 make it to 4 co-sponsors and was essentially withdrawn by Ms.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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160810/235b3a7e/attachment-0002.html>