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

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 11 17:19:40 EDT 2016 

	All right, I'll withdraw that then. I was just trying to simplify things, because it does seem to be getting unnecessarily complicated. No drama intended.  :-)

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                              (415) 625-FREE


On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:02 PM, lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:

> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 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
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-votes mailing list
> Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160811/076a15e7/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list