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

Fri Aug 12 07:20:11 EDT 2016

On Thursday, August 11, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> With the clarifications in place, both versions have enough co-sponsors
> for an email ballot:
>
> Version B:  Harlos, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Vohra
>
> Version C:  Starchild, Harlos, Vohra, Demarest
>
> I generally try to get email ballots out within 24 hours of when they have
> met the criteria.  Since I know there's side discussion among some of the
> co-sponsors about whether to take another approach, I'm kinda inclined to
> pause briefly to see if they withdraw their sponsorship of this approach in
> favor of an alternative approach.
>
> If I don't hear indicators that change is in the air, I'll proceed with
> the two we have.  Since C is written as an amendment to B, I'll start B on
> one day, start C on the next with the understanding that it is a motion to
> amend something previously adopted.  I will intentionally not vote on C
> until B has ended so as to avoid timing anomalies.
>
> Caryn Ann, by midnight Pacific on Friday night, can you give me a sense of
> whether the co-sponsors are going to make a change, or whether I should
> proceed with the approach that is already lined up?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','votevohra at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to cosponsor both simultaneously
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','VoteVohra at gmail.com');>
>> (301) 320-3634
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160812/fc67267e/attachment-0002.html>