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

Fri Aug 12 07:21:56 EDT 2016

Alicia, it is my sense that your approach is the one preferred and you
should proceed in that manner.

- Caryn Ann Harlos

On Friday, August 12, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> <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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <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>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/b78b477d/attachment-0002.html>