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

Thu Aug 11 16:17:59 EDT 2016

I'm happy to cosponsor both simultaneously

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160811/018af111/attachment-0002.html>