[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: [Lnc-votes] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors

Thu Aug 11 17:02:26 EDT 2016

I am not in favour of that Starchild.  I would like the opportunity to vote
for them both or have one passed and vote to amend.  I do not want to have
to choose between the two since I am supportive of them both and do not
wish to sacrifice one for the other. * I am certainly not going to
sacrifice my original proposal.*

I have emailed you and the other co-sponsors privately to discuss the
options.  Of course I could always just ask for the ballot to be run on my
submission (Version B) and let you handle the other one (Version C) how you
see fit.  I think this is being made way too dramatic and complicated.  I
support it and am getting tired, I am sure the other members are as well.
Let's move on (we can discuss off-list if you like)

There is no downside to two passing simultaneously IMHO.

-- 
*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 2:42 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Looking at Alicia's three proposed ways of resolving this (see her email
> below), I think the third approach should be ruled out, because we don't
> really want two different versions of the resolution passing
> simultaneously. But the other two approaches also seem cumbersome.
>
> Would it be parliamentarily (is that a word) correct for me to offer a
> motion that we have a single ballot in which members vote to support either
> the original wording, the revised wording, or neither?
>
> If so, then I make that motion.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                    ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 1:17 PM, lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
*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/20160811/8f7d8dba/attachment-0002.html>