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

Thu Aug 11 13:25:50 EDT 2016

Alicia, I intend to co-sponsor both.  I was indicating my preference for
Version C ultimately but pragmatically also supporting Version B.

I am speaking with my co-sponsors on version C to see which of several of
your options (simultaneous ballots or motion to amend something previously
adopted) they would support as a methodology.

I will let you know.

-- 
*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 Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Alicia, thanks for your attempt to un-muddy the waters on this complicated
> issue.
>
> I will co-sponsor version C (Starchild's more strongly worded version) and
> will vote in favor of C and/or B pending the outcome of this enlightening
> discussion.
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
> Cell: 402-981-6469
> Home: 402-493-0873
> Office: 402-222-7207
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Hayes
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:31 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution
> co-sponsors
>
> As I already stated I am Co Sponsoring version B with Libertarian Party
> removed and LNC inserted.
>
> For clarity, I am not sponsoring version A, which I had originally said I
> did.
>
> For what it's worth I will NOT vote for version C(like Sam already said he
> would not) if that makes any difference to people in this matter.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:01 AM, 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160811/5885893f/attachment-0002.html>