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

Fri Aug 12 23:17:42 EDT 2016

Alrighty, then.  I'll put out the first one tonight and the second one
tomorrow.

-Alicia

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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> 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
>> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160812/be6c8ad4/attachment-0002.html>