[Lnc-business] EFC Update and Extension
Daniel Hayes
danielehayes at icloud.com
Wed Jan 11 10:43:07 EST 2017
Nope...cause the wrong motion was proposed.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> So are we voting yet?
>
> ---
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>> On 2017-01-11 10:00, Joshua Katz wrote:
>>
>> The question is only being discussed because email ballots are weird. I'm not convinced there's much of a difference when seeking unanimous consent by email vs.voting. if one yes vote is cast, and no objection is expected, everyone else can be silent with no change. The main difference seems to be that when seeking unanimous consent, we'd be assuming a motion and wouldn't need co sponsors. If no one objects, it's clear there was sufficient support to consider the question
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 2017 8:37 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>> Caryn Ann, I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a place for judicious use of the "Any objections?" approach particularly when none are expected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When objections are expected, however, asking if there are any objections can easily be perverted into a careless or deliberate expedient strong-arm statist top-down authoritarian tactic to stifle discussion, transparency and diversity of opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Show-of-hands, or better yet, roll-call recorded voting maximizes free speech and personal accountability and minimizes abdication of personal responsibility to higher authority.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not rocket science. Nick and Arvin set an excellent example on the thoughtful use of the "Any objections" approach.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>
>>> LNC Region 6 Representative
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 7:04 AM
>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] EFC Update and Extension
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alicia my concern about precedent is there may be a motion that there is one lone objector to in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To simply say if I don't hear an objection in a shorter period of time prejudices rights since the time frame for any decision is ten days and that shortened it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not a concern here. It could be one in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I don't find going through the process and casting a vote to be "busywork."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As my colleague from Connecticut writes, I'm a stickler for the rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I am simply wrong here about our rules, I would love to know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:12 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are 5 co-sponsors of this motion, which is more than enough to sponsor an email ballot, however there are two technical problems with the wording, one of which is fairly important to note. I want to make sure the co-sponsors are aware of this before I send it out for a vote.
>>>
>>> 1) This motion references "EFC", but if someone is not reading these threads as we are, and they're just reading our minutes later, they'll have no clue what this motion is talking about. At the time we created the committee, we didn't specify any name for the committee at all, but it was under an agenda heading about reviewing the 2016 campaign. Following the meeting when I needed to have staff add this committee to our website, I merely had them designate it as the Committee to Solicit Bids for Reviewing 2016 Campaign. That way it would be easy to find in our minutes what that committee was.
>>>
>>> The committee members themselves nicknamed it the Empowered Future Committee (? I think ?), but that name appears nowhere in our minutes, nor does the acronym EFC.
>>>
>>> The name confusion will will leave readers in the dark about what it was this motion did.
>>>
>>> 2) The bigger technical issue with this motion is that it actually imposes new requirements on the committee and doesn't accurately represent what the date in the original motion was for. This wording says nothing about changing the due date for the bids, which is what the January 10th date was. However, the wording now says the committee is to present us a report by the date of January 30, though the original motion required no report from the committee to the LNC in January. If we mean to make the bid deadline January 30, the committee would presumably need some time after the bid submission deadline to come up with any recommendations and make any sort of report back to us about the bids.
>>>
>>> Is that what the co-sponsors intended to do? Impose a new reporting requirement on an unreasonable time frame?
>>>
>>> My suggestion to fix both issues is that you take Joshua's idea to merely amend the motion we adopted in December to change the date, and leave the rest of the wording alone. (Okay, technically Joshua said just to change the "1" to a "3", but this representation is just a little more readable.) Amend the motion we adopted in December as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "that the Libertarian National Committee
>>>
>>> establish a committee to take bids from political consultants for the task of
>>>
>>> extensively reviewing and making recommendations for the Libertarian Party's messaging
>>>
>>> (and modes of messaging), inclusion in the debates, fundraising and campaign
>>>
>>> finance, campaign mechanics, and state and local affiliates. Said agency will
>>>
>>> agree to present their findings to the public before December of 2017. The committee
>>>
>>> will take bids until the 10th30th of January."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I need to hear from the co-sponsors what you want to do.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest at firstdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am seeking co-sponsors for the following motion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Extend deadline from 1/10/2017 to 1/30/2017 for EFC presentation to LNC of report on political consultant bids, analysis and recommendations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy UnConvention Oct 20-22
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LNC Region 6 Representative
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cell: 402-981-6469
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Home: 402-493-0873
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Office: 402-222-7207
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 11:02 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Cc: Demarest, David P.; 'David Demarest'
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] EFC Update and Extension
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry or Trent,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can provide the desired wording, I will offer the motion unless someone has already done so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LNC Region 6 Representative
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cell: 402-981-6469
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Home: 402-493-0873
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Office: 402-222-7207
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org]
>>>
>>> On Behalf Of Joshua Katz
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 7:35 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] EFC Update and Extension
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My recollection is that we chose January 10 so that the bids would be presented on my birthday. I'm disappointed we won't be able to receive them on that auspicious occasion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will cosponsor a motion with Sam, however, to amend our previously adopted motion by substituting a 3 for the 1 in "10."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Larry Sharpe <lsharpe at neo-sage.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi LNC Team,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Happy New Year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have found four possible vendors for proposals. Each has our request and is scheduled to provide us with a plan/proposal by the end of this week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We will whittle these down and perhaps have a Q & A and/or a 2nd round before selecting 2 or 3 of them to present (heir plans with details) to the LNC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in a previous note, we will need to extend our deadline. It was challenging to get the right vendors who are the right size, with the right backgrounds,
>>>
>>> that are willing to help us with flexible pricing options. And when you add on the Holiday Season, this was even tougher.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, with respect, the EFC requests an extension to January 30th to confidently be able to present options to the LNC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry Sharpe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://TheNeoSage.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/neosage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 212-307-3545
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image001.png>
>>>
>>> Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170111/259a12f2/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list