[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 00:51:41 EST 2018


Joshua A. Katz


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan at lp.org> wrote:

> You may want to look at RONR, page 440, lines 3-17, particularly where it
> mentions, "a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one office by a
> single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the election
> specifically provide for such simultaneous election."
>
The election here, though, does not take place on a single ballot (or even
two votes among the same people).

>
> The sample Bylaws on p. 585 include, "No member shall hold more than one
> office at a time".
>
Indeed - and RONR considers (rather confusingly, I think) directors to be
officers.  But, like most organizations, we know better than the sample
bylaws ;-)

>
> Our Bylaws, Article 6, has "No offices shall be combined.", but this is in
> the Article covering the four officers.
>
I agree that no one can be, for instance, chair and treasurer, or
vice-chair and secretary.  I think its placement, though, makes it clear
that it doesn't apply to directors (despite the fact that RONR treats
directors as officers).

>
> Don't know if these help, or confuses the answer.
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
>
> On 2018-02-26 20:42, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>> Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear up
>>    any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
>>    First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking questions
>>    about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from many
>>    people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have thought
>>    of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee.  If anyone wants
>>    the specifics of that, please write me.  The situation is not exactly
>>    parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me to
>>    understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
>>    My first question:
>>    ==Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a
>>    regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And what are
>>    they?  Both?  The “superior” position?==
>>    I asked about our Bylaws.  Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
>>    situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the specific
>>    scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a regional rep
>>    for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
>>    Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a
>>    person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
>>    permitted. ==
>>    I would ask here then why has that never happened?  It seems to me that
>>    the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent and
>>    defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be available if
>>    their primary is not present.  Incoherent or absurd interpretations do
>>    not seem to me to be the intent of a rule.  So, next convention, could
>>    I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7 alternate and
>>    on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick that,
>>    you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that?  Is there
>>    not a presumption of sense of purpose?
>>    The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a present
>>    regional rep was appointed as Treasurer.  It is my fault for not being
>>    clear I am referring to elections at convention.  Can a regional
>>    representative run for Treasurer too?  This actually is a very
>>    pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1 and an
>>    officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were crazy
>>    enough to do it.  But am I wrong?  Do I have that option?  Can anyone
>>    really say that is what our Bylaws really meant?  If so then our Bylaws
>>    need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
>>    interpretations result.  Now I can think of a contrary argument -
>>    normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not.  That
>>    is the commonsense approach.  Joshua you seem to be arguing that if it
>>    isn't forbidden it is permitted.  What is the justification for that?
>>    Does not context, intent, and history matter?  I am not a conjoined
>>    twin.  An officer has different and potentially conflicting
>>    responsibilities.  When absurd output comes out of input, that is a
>>    clear clue the input is false.  But here is a piece of contrary
>>    evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate people.  So
>>    if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after it
>>    demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants your
>>    position weight Joshua.  And if that is the case, our Bylaws have a
>>    huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead of
>>    declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both?  I
>>    don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all what
>>    was ever intended.  Theoretically then all of the Regionals could be
>>    one person?  If not, why not?   You can confine your answer to
>>    elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that was my
>>    intent.
>>    So to continue with my questions:
>>    ==Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically
>>    could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that something
>>    our Bylaws intended to allow? ==
>>    Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
>>    concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term appointment
>>    historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged.  But let's speak to that
>>    historical appointment.  It happened, was it right?  What was the
>>    justification?  Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is indeed
>>    a precedent.
>>    That leads to the crux of my question:
>>    ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
>>    Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8 Alternate and
>>    that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that our
>>    Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
>>    alternate).  There is an email ballot.  When do I have to declare what
>>    capacity I am voting as?  Before voting starts?  At any time?  Can I
>>    withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as the
>>    other?
>>    Let's look at these various scenarios:
>>    Before Voting Starts
>>    If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense.  It raises
>>    issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
>>    At any time?  (and this is the most directly parallel to the situation
>>    on the Platform Committee)
>>    That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and the
>>    previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us guidance
>>    in both letter and spirit.  The reason for that is a foundation of
>>    fairness and proper representation.  In fact all of Robert's has that
>>    as a foundation.  Protection of people and rights.
>>    The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have an
>>    inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
>>    have.  How so?
>>    Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes.  And if I
>>    like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
>>    gamble that they won't and amplify my preference.  No one else can do
>>    that.  It is patently absurd and unfair.
>>    Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
>>    the other?  (this is also directly parallel to the question on the
>>    Platform Committee)
>>    What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and changes
>>    their vote to something I don't like.  Can I then withdraw my vote as
>>    Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID VOTE???
>>     There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that answered.
>>    And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its head.
>>    And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got the
>>    Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made explicitly
>>    aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their use of
>>    their alternate?
>>    _________________________________________________
>>    Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for possible
>>    inequities in the system.  Why does the maker of a motion get to speak
>>    first?  Etc.  But that is available to everyone similarly situated.
>>    That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
>>    parliamentary law is any different.
>>    I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
>>    accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their voting
>>    rights, and  deprive an appointing body of its choice of
>>    representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
>>    I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect everyone.
>>    We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst possible
>>    speculations on motives.
>>    Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner.  I would truly
>>    like to hear what you have to say.  I have consulted early on with
>>    Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra details too
>>    as I have groked it more.
>>    As I see it there are two issues:
>>    1.  When must the hat be declared?
>>    2.  Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
>>    Thoughts?
>>
>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>    And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and lead
>>    up to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
>>
>>    I will be more clear a bit later.
>>
>>    But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said clearly
>>    said my reason for asking.
>>
>>    There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that has
>>    some points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
>>
>>    And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my actual
>>    desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion.  That was absolutely
>>    and utterly uncalled for.
>>
>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>    And Alicia that was unwarranted.  Please do not impugn my motives or
>>    make this personal.
>>
>>    Thank you.
>>
>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    <[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>    Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
>>
>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
>>    <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>    I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
>>
>>    On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz
>>    <[5]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters how the
>>      vote
>>         is counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system the LNC
>>      used
>>         is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity they
>>      are
>>         voting.
>>         Joshua A. Katz
>>         On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
>>         <[1][6]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>         I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not be
>>      both,
>>         which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However, the
>>         fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one vote,"
>>      not "one
>>         position, one vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote twice.
>>      So,
>>         on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,") it
>>      will be
>>         counted only once.  Should the rep for whom they are an alternate
>>      vote,
>>         that's clear anyway.  Should that rep not vote, the point is that
>>      their
>>         vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the
>>      region
>>         they alternate for.  I don't see that it matters, mathematically,
>>      which
>>         one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep votes,
>>      which
>>         is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
>>         As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate) this
>>      person
>>         is an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they could
>>      not
>>         assert their alternate status and serve in a position not
>>      otherwise
>>         open to an LNC member.
>>         Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have no
>>      idea if
>>         the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any
>>      ambiguity in
>>         which to resort to intent.
>>         Joshua A. Katz
>>         On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>         <[2][7]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>              Hypothetical question:
>>              Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person
>>      could be
>>           a
>>              regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?
>>      And
>>           what are
>>              they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
>>              If so, how would that work in an email vote?
>>              There are multiple practical issues.
>>              Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on
>>      platcomm
>>           and
>>              will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and
>>           opinions can
>>              lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically handle
>>      would
>>           be a
>>              helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not exact
>>      but
>>           would
>>              give insight.
>>              Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
>>           theoretically
>>              could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that
>>           something
>>              our Bylaws intended to allow?
>>              Any and all insight appreciated.
>>              I would be more than happy to detail what issues of
>>      fundamental
>>              inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting
>>      in my
>>           first
>>              hypothetical.
>>              --
>>              In Liberty,
>>              Caryn Ann Harlos
>>              Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>      (Alaska,
>>              Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>           Washington)
>>              - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>>              Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>              Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>              A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>              We defend your rights
>>              And oppose the use of force
>>              Taxation is theft
>>           References
>>              1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>              2. [4][8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>      References
>>         1. mailto:[9]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>         2. mailto:[10]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>         3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>         4. [12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>>    1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>    2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>    3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>    4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>    5. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>    6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>    7. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>    8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>    9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>   10. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>   11. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>   12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Joshua A. Katz
   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan <[1]tim.hagan at lp.org>
   wrote:

     You may want to look at RONR, page 440, lines 3-17, particularly
     where it mentions, "a candidate is never deemed elected to more than
     one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing
     the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election."

   The election here, though, does not take place on a single ballot (or
   even two votes among the same people).

     The sample Bylaws on p. 585 include, "No member shall hold more than
     one office at a time".

   Indeed - and RONR considers (rather confusingly, I think) directors to
   be officers.  But, like most organizations, we know better than the
   sample bylaws ;-)

     Our Bylaws, Article 6, has "No offices shall be combined.", but this
     is in the Article covering the four officers.

   I agree that no one can be, for instance, chair and treasurer, or
   vice-chair and secretary.  I think its placement, though, makes it
   clear that it doesn't apply to directors (despite the fact that RONR
   treats directors as officers).

     Don't know if these help, or confuses the answer.
     ---
     Tim Hagan
     Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

   On 2018-02-26 20:42, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

     Okay thanks for getting the discussion started, and I want to clear
     up
        any confusion I may have inadvertently inserted.
        First, like I openly stated in my opening email I am asking
     questions
        about hypotheticals on the LNC because I am seeking insights from
     many
        people that could be in similar circumstances to be sure I have
     thought
        of every angle on an issue on the Platform Committee.  If anyone
     wants
        the specifics of that, please write me.  The situation is not
     exactly
        parallel to the questions I asked here but similar enough for me
     to
        understand how eveyrone would see certain principles.
        My first question:
        ==Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could
     be a
        regional rep for one state and an alternate for another?  And
     what are
        they?  Both?  The “superior” position?==
        I asked about our Bylaws.  Ms. Mattson pointed out a historical
        situation I was previously made aware of, but that isn't the
     specific
        scenario I gave here which was specific, can a person be a
     regional rep
        for one region and an alternate for another separate region.
        Mr. Katz responded: == I don't see anything in the bylaws saying
     a
        person could not be both, which leads me to conclude that it is
        permitted. ==
        I would ask here then why has that never happened?  It seems to
     me that
        the Bylaws do not mention it because it is inherently incoherent
     and
        defies the entire purpose of an alternate which is to be
     available if
        their primary is not present.  Incoherent or absurd
     interpretations do
        not seem to me to be the intent of a rule.  So, next convention,
     could
        I run for Region 1 rep, At Large, Secretary, and Region 7
     alternate and
        on the unlikely chance that delegates were foolish enough to pick
     that,
        you really are arguing that our Bylaws are okay with that?  Is
     there
        not a presumption of sense of purpose?
        The historical situation was a mid-term vacancy in which a
     present
        regional rep was appointed as Treasurer.  It is my fault for not
     being
        clear I am referring to elections at convention.  Can a regional
        representative run for Treasurer too?  This actually is a very
        pertinent question as a state chair suggested I run for region 1
     and an
        officer position which I told him was not possible even if I were
     crazy
        enough to do it.  But am I wrong?  Do I have that option?  Can
     anyone
        really say that is what our Bylaws really meant?  If so then our
     Bylaws
        need to be significantly longer because all kinds of absurd
        interpretations result.  Now I can think of a contrary argument -
        normally I would say if it doesn't say it is allowed, it is not.
     That
        is the commonsense approach.  Joshua you seem to be arguing that
     if it
        isn't forbidden it is permitted.  What is the justification for
     that?
        Does not context, intent, and history matter?  I am not a
     conjoined
        twin.  An officer has different and potentially conflicting
        responsibilities.  When absurd output comes out of input, that is
     a
        clear clue the input is false.  But here is a piece of contrary
        evidence, our Bylaws do say that officers MUST be separate
     people.  So
        if it is says it there and doesn't say it in another place after
     it
        demonstrated that it was aware of the possibility that grants
     your
        position weight Joshua.  And if that is the case, our Bylaws have
     a
        huge problem, and now I have another option to consider - instead
     of
        declaring for one or the other, as the meme goes, why not both?
     I
        don't think even 1% of our membership would think that is at all
     what
        was ever intended.  Theoretically then all of the Regionals could
     be
        one person?  If not, why not?   You can confine your answer to
        elections at conventions not mid-term appointments because that
     was my
        intent.
        So to continue with my questions:
        ==Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
     theoretically
        could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is that
     something
        our Bylaws intended to allow? ==
        Again that was meant for at convention rather than some dastardly
        concealment of the fact that I am aware that a mid-term
     appointment
        historically happened as Ms. Mattson alleged.  But let's speak to
     that
        historical appointment.  It happened, was it right?  What was the
        justification?  Not everything the LNC does is right, but it is
     indeed
        a precedent.
        That leads to the crux of my question:
        ==If so, how would that work in an email vote?==
        Okay let's say I am Region 1 Representative and Region 8
     Alternate and
        that is allowed (which to be clear I think is an absurdity that
     our
        Bylaws never contemplated and utterly defeats the purpose of an
        alternate).  There is an email ballot.  When do I have to declare
     what
        capacity I am voting as?  Before voting starts?  At any time?
     Can I
        withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and vote as
     the
        other?
        Let's look at these various scenarios:
        Before Voting Starts
        If we grant I can hold both seats, then that makes sense.  It
     raises
        issue of procedure but that is a separate issue.
        At any time?  (and this is the most directly parallel to the
     situation
        on the Platform Committee)
        That would give me a tactical advantage that no one else has and
     the
        previously cited RONR passage of one person, one vote gives us
     guidance
        in both letter and spirit.  The reason for that is a foundation
     of
        fairness and proper representation.  In fact all of Robert's has
     that
        as a foundation.  Protection of people and rights.
        The rest of the assembly has a right not to have one member have
     an
        inherent tactical advantage that others members do not and cannot
        have.  How so?
        Well I could wait to see how the Region 1 alternate votes.  And
     if I
        like that vote, and the Region 8 primary has not yet voted, I can
        gamble that they won't and amplify my preference.  No one else
     can do
        that.  It is patently absurd and unfair.
        Can I withdraw my vote as one position and then turn around and
     vote as
        the other?  (this is also directly parallel to the question on
     the
        Platform Committee)
        What if then the Region 1 alternate changes their mind and
     changes
        their vote to something I don't like.  Can I then withdraw my
     vote as
        Region 8 alternate and assert my seat as Region 1 primary MID
     VOTE???
         There is a big problem there, and I would like to see that
     answered.
        And this shows how this turns the purpose of an alternate on its
     head.
        And what I had the Region 8 alternate position first, then got
     the
        Region 1 primary position later and Region 8 was not made
     explicitly
        aware of this so that they consented to the compromise of their
     use of
        their alternate?
        _________________________________________________
        Counter arguments have been made that there are planned for
     possible
        inequities in the system.  Why does the maker of a motion get to
     speak
        first?  Etc.  But that is available to everyone similarly
     situated.
        That is a common theme in law, and I see no reason to believe
        parliamentary law is any different.
        I hope in seeing what I am struggling with, I have shown that any
        accusation that I am "s attempting to deprive someone of their
     voting
        rights, and  deprive an appointing body of its choice of
        representative" is a completely unacceptable attack.
        I see a situation and I am trying to resolve it to protect
     everyone.
        We really need to stop in this Party jumping to the worst
     possible
        speculations on motives.
        Joshua, I deeply respect your insights and your manner.  I would
     truly
        like to hear what you have to say.  I have consulted early on
     with
        Richard Brown on this but I will be giving him these extra
     details too
        as I have groked it more.
        As I see it there are two issues:
        1.  When must the hat be declared?
        2.  Can the hat be changed mid-vote?
        Thoughts?
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
        And I see Joshua (and perhaps to others) that the background and
     lead
        up to my question seems to have obscured the ultimate question.
        I will be more clear a bit later.
        But I do refer everyone to the part of my email where I said
     clearly
        said my reason for asking.
        There is a real situation - though not on all fours exact - that
     has
        some points of comparison to a hypothetical here.
        And I would ask that Ms. Mattson not personally attack me in my
     actual
        desire to be sure we come to a good conclusion.  That was
     absolutely
        and utterly uncalled for.
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
        And Alicia that was unwarranted.  Please do not impugn my motives
     or
        make this personal.
        Thank you.
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
        Joshua I’m running out but I have some questions to ask,
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[4][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
        I was clear exactly why I asked Alicia.
        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM Joshua Katz
        <[5][6]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
             Ms. Mattson's response makes clearer to me why it matters
     how the
          vote
             is counted.  Given that, I would conclude that the system
     the LNC
          used
             is correct, and the member should specify in which capacity
     they
          are
             voting.
             Joshua A. Katz
             On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz
             <[1][6][7]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
             I don't see anything in the bylaws saying a person could not
     be
          both,
             which leads me to conclude that it is permitted.  However,
     the
             fundamental rule applicable is that of "one person, one
     vote,"
          not "one
             position, one vote."  Hence, such a person could not vote
     twice.
          So,
             on an email ballot, supposing they cast a vote (say, "aye,")
     it
          will be
             counted only once.  Should the rep for whom they are an
     alternate
          vote,
             that's clear anyway.  Should that rep not vote, the point is
     that
          their
             vote cannot count for both the region they represent and the
          region
             they alternate for.  I don't see that it matters,
     mathematically,
          which
             one they count for - the real variable is whether the rep
     votes,
          which
             is not under the control of this rep/alternate.
             As for "what are they," well, clearly (unlike an alternate)
     this
          person
             is an LNC member, with all that entails.  For example, they
     could
          not
             assert their alternate status and serve in a position not
          otherwise
             open to an LNC member.
             Regarding officers, I think the same thing applies.  I have
     no
          idea if
             the bylaws intend that outcome or not, but I don't see any
          ambiguity in
             which to resort to intent.
             Joshua A. Katz
             On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
             <[2][7][8]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
                  Hypothetical question:
                  Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person
          could be
               a
                  regional rep for one state and an alternate for
     another?
          And
               what are
                  they?  Both?  The “superior” position?
                  If so, how would that work in an email vote?
                  There are multiple practical issues.
                  Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on
          platcomm
               and
                  will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds
     and
               opinions can
                  lead to insights.  How the LNC would hypothetically
     handle
          would
               be a
                  helpful piece of information.  The parallels are not
     exact
          but
               would
                  give insight.
                  Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes -
               theoretically
                  could an at-large or regional also be an officer?  Is
     that
               something
                  our Bylaws intended to allow?
                  Any and all insight appreciated.
                  I would be more than happy to detail what issues of
          fundamental
                  inequity present themselves when dealing with email
     voting
          in my
               first
                  hypothetical.
                  --
                  In Liberty,
                  Caryn Ann Harlos
                  Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
          (Alaska,
                  Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah,
     Wyoming,
               Washington)
                  - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
                  Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of
     Colorado
                  Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
                  A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
                  We defend your rights
                  And oppose the use of force
                  Taxation is theft
               References
                  1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
                  2. [4][8][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
          References
             1. mailto:[9][10]planning4liberty at gmail.com
             2. mailto:[10][11]carynannharlos at gmail.com
             3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
             4. [12][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
     References
        1. mailto:[13]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        3. mailto:[15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        4. mailto:[16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        5. mailto:[17]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        6. mailto:[18]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        7. mailto:[19]carynannharlos at gmail.com
        8. [20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
        9. mailto:[21]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       10. mailto:[22]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       12. [24]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   8. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
   9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  11. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  16. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  17. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  18. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  19. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  21. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  22. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  23. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  24. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list