[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 09:55:29 EST 2018
On the premise that the dual-appointee has greater power than 1/n, I don't
think there's a need to inform either body (although, as a practical
matter, it will be clear pretty soon). I certainly don't think they are
somehow having only a partial alternate, at least any more than the common
situation where the alternate is rarely seen or heard from. They have a
rep, and they have an alternate who gets to vote more often than they'd
expect. I don't see that they've been harmed.
Thinking about the voting situation some more, I have changed my mind and
no longer think (unless, of course, other rules are passed in a body
allowed to do so) that "declare at the start of voting" is better than
"declare when you vote," at least for email. That is, I previously said
(and still think) it has practical problems, but if those can be fixed, I
still don't think it's superior. I now think the practically and
theoretically correct solution is the practical one I advocated in my
previous email - declare when you vote. I came to that decision by
starting from a roll-call vote at a real meeting, and thinking about how
email voting differs from a roll call. It differs in that the participants
themselves, vote by vote, choose the order of voting - and it isn't
influenced by social things (sitting next to your friends), length of time
spent eating breakfast, or, most importantly, the decision of the
chair/secretary as to which direction to go. Because of those factors, the
collusion situation I described is made easier, and I don't think we need
to impose any conditions on the dual appointee stricter than those on
collusion. I recognize you disagreed with my collusion comparison, but I
think I'm right (shocker).
Perhaps more importantly, though, "declare before voting starts" seems to
me like it would require a rule, while "declare when you vote" is simply a
logical consequence of the act of voting - to vote in an email ballot (or
roll call) you must identify yourself. Identifying yourself is not the
sort of thing that can be changed during voting. I can change my vote, but
I can't decide that I'll keep my vote the same, but now vote as Starchild.
This isn't a big problem, unless we were, hypothetically of course, talking
about a committee. That is, if the task is to fill a hole with the most
logical rule, I think the rule easiest to derive is the best fit.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Joshua VERY HELPFUL
> So you answered my first question to my satisfaction that all of my
> hypotheticals could happen. That was more of a leadup so I thank you.
> I do disagree that there is not an ambiguity, in fact, I think there is
> a rather clear one, but that isn't my main issue.
> Do you agree that if there is to be a simultaneous position holding
> from two separate bodies that both bodies should consent to or be aware
> of the dual representation? That there is a big difference between me
> being elected as an alternate, going to another regional caucus and
> getting elected as their primary, and not overtly telling the the first
> region that this happened? I am not claiming its some world-ender - as
> I say all the time - no one died, but it does seem to be an issue to me
> because the first body should have the option to decide to revoke its
> appointment, particularly if there is a time frame in which to do
> that. If there isn't, then no harm no foul. Well maybe some harm if
> they can't appoint a new one. But that is pretty fact and situation
> specific. Not my primary concern here however. I do think that the
> body who first appointed an alternate has had their representation
> power diminished. They don't really have an alternate. They only have
> an alternate when the alternate chooses to be an alternate. That's
> real.
> Now on the email voting which is where the real crux is:
> 1. We seem to agree that no changing hats mid-vote. For what its
> worth that position is exactly why I am being accusing of depriving
> someone of their vote- at least in part. I don't expect you to take a
> side in that, I am just noting you reasonably came to the same
> conclusion. We could both be wrong.
> ==Well, I'll just say off the bat that I'm not all that troubled by
> the tactical advantage. Consider that exactly the same advantage
> can be gained simply by an agreement between a rep and an alternate
> from another region to communicate and align their votes, either on
> a particular matter or throughout a term. They give up some degree
> of certainty (i.e. people can defect), but gain the potential for an
> extra vote, which can't happen with the same person in both
> positions. As a result, it strikes me as roughly the same tactical
> position.==
> You just showed how it is fundamentally different. AND it is available
> to everyone. My scenario is not. Advantage isn't fungible like that.
> One drop of advantage isn't able to be computed. You agree there is an
> advantage. You disagree on whether it is troublesome. I think if you
> consider more that the exact same advantage is not available to
> everyone makes it fundamentally different. The dual-position holder
> can do both and has an ace in their pocket on some votes if there is a
> defection.
> ==So it remains unclear to me just how much power
> this is. Certainly not twice the power of the average member, which
> is
> what RONR tells us shouldn't happen.==
> That isn't all it says. It says one person one vote which carries a
> lot of baggage in it. It doesn't mean just not two, would 1.5 be
> okay? Clearly not. And CASTING one vote carries with it the subsumed
> implication of CONTROLLING ONE VOTE during a vote.
> == The rule of "one person, one vote" is a fundamental principle,
> though,
> and could be taken to be an attempt to reach voting power. In that
> spirit, it makes sense that, since we need to make a judgment
> anyway,
> we should make those choices which minimize the power discrepancy.
> That choice seems to be the one the LNC used in the past when it
> comes
> to email ballots - the person must state before voting begins which
> position they will vote. But that itself creates its own unfairness
> -
> it implies that anyone else could keep them from voting simply by
> voting before they declare their position. So I don't think that's
> feasible.===
> Perfect! Yes. That is why I said above that it would create a
> procedure problem. That procedure problem could be cured by the
> Secretary writing the member before the ballot starts and ask them what
> capacity they intend to vote as. I agree one cannot create unfairness
> against the person holding two seats. Your bolded words were very on
> point and much more succinct than I was.
> My goal is to be fair to all concerned. Thank you Joshua - any other
> insight you have would be greatly appreciated. You really helped.
> Its been quite a stumper to people I have asked. Richard was a good one
> because he is familiar with us and how we work.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Joshua Katz
> <[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
> <[1][2]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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[9][10][11]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:[10][11][12]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 4. [12][12][13]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[13][14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[14][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[15][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[16][17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[17][18]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:[18][19]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 7. mailto:[19][20]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 8. [20][21]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 9. mailto:[21][22]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 10. mailto:[22][23]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 12. [24][24]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[25]tim.hagan at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[30]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>
> 7. mailto:[31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 8. mailto:[32]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 9. [33]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 10. mailto:[34]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:[35]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 12. [36]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 13. mailto:[37]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 14. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 15. mailto:[39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 16. mailto:[40]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 17. mailto:[41]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 18. mailto:[42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 19. mailto:[43]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 20. [44]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 21. mailto:[45]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 22. mailto:[46]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 24. [48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:tim.hagan 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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 9. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 10. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 12. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 13. http://www.lpcolorado.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:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 18. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 19. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 20. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 21. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 22. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 23. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 24. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 25. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
> 26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 30. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 32. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 33. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 34. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 35. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 36. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 37. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 39. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 40. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 41. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 42. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 43. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 44. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 45. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 46. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 47. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
On the premise that the dual-appointee has greater power than 1/n, I
don't think there's a need to inform either body (although, as a
practical matter, it will be clear pretty soon). I certainly don't
think they are somehow having only a partial alternate, at least any
more than the common situation where the alternate is rarely seen or
heard from. They have a rep, and they have an alternate who gets to
vote more often than they'd expect. I don't see that they've been
harmed.
Thinking about the voting situation some more, I have changed my mind
and no longer think (unless, of course, other rules are passed in a
body allowed to do so) that "declare at the start of voting" is better
than "declare when you vote," at least for email. That is, I
previously said (and still think) it has practical problems, but if
those can be fixed, I still don't think it's superior. I now think the
practically and theoretically correct solution is the practical one I
advocated in my previous email - declare when you vote. I came to that
decision by starting from a roll-call vote at a real meeting, and
thinking about how email voting differs from a roll call. It differs
in that the participants themselves, vote by vote, choose the order of
voting - and it isn't influenced by social things (sitting next to your
friends), length of time spent eating breakfast, or, most importantly,
the decision of the chair/secretary as to which direction to go.
Because of those factors, the collusion situation I described is made
easier, and I don't think we need to impose any conditions on the dual
appointee stricter than those on collusion. I recognize you disagreed
with my collusion comparison, but I think I'm right (shocker).
Perhaps more importantly, though, "declare before voting starts" seems
to me like it would require a rule, while "declare when you vote" is
simply a logical consequence of the act of voting - to vote in an email
ballot (or roll call) you must identify yourself. Identifying yourself
is not the sort of thing that can be changed during voting. I can
change my vote, but I can't decide that I'll keep my vote the same, but
now vote as Starchild. This isn't a big problem, unless we were,
hypothetically of course, talking about a committee. That is, if the
task is to fill a hole with the most logical rule, I think the rule
easiest to derive is the best fit.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Joshua VERY HELPFUL
So you answered my first question to my satisfaction that all of
my
hypotheticals could happen. That was more of a leadup so I thank
you.
I do disagree that there is not an ambiguity, in fact, I think
there is
a rather clear one, but that isn't my main issue.
Do you agree that if there is to be a simultaneous position
holding
from two separate bodies that both bodies should consent to or be
aware
of the dual representation? That there is a big difference
between me
being elected as an alternate, going to another regional caucus
and
getting elected as their primary, and not overtly telling the the
first
region that this happened? I am not claiming its some
world-ender - as
I say all the time - no one died, but it does seem to be an issue
to me
because the first body should have the option to decide to revoke
its
appointment, particularly if there is a time frame in which to do
that. If there isn't, then no harm no foul. Well maybe some
harm if
they can't appoint a new one. But that is pretty fact and
situation
specific. Not my primary concern here however. I do think that
the
body who first appointed an alternate has had their
representation
power diminished. They don't really have an alternate. They
only have
an alternate when the alternate chooses to be an alternate.
That's
real.
Now on the email voting which is where the real crux is:
1. We seem to agree that no changing hats mid-vote. For what
its
worth that position is exactly why I am being accusing of
depriving
someone of their vote- at least in part. I don't expect you to
take a
side in that, I am just noting you reasonably came to the same
conclusion. We could both be wrong.
==Well, I'll just say off the bat that I'm not all that
troubled by
the tactical advantage. Consider that exactly the same
advantage
can be gained simply by an agreement between a rep and an
alternate
from another region to communicate and align their votes,
either on
a particular matter or throughout a term. They give up some
degree
of certainty (i.e. people can defect), but gain the potential
for an
extra vote, which can't happen with the same person in both
positions. As a result, it strikes me as roughly the same
tactical
position.==
You just showed how it is fundamentally different. AND it is
available
to everyone. My scenario is not. Advantage isn't fungible like
that.
One drop of advantage isn't able to be computed. You agree there
is an
advantage. You disagree on whether it is troublesome. I think
if you
consider more that the exact same advantage is not available to
everyone makes it fundamentally different. The dual-position
holder
can do both and has an ace in their pocket on some votes if there
is a
defection.
==So it remains unclear to me just how much power
this is. Certainly not twice the power of the average member,
which
is
what RONR tells us shouldn't happen.==
That isn't all it says. It says one person one vote which
carries a
lot of baggage in it. It doesn't mean just not two, would 1.5 be
okay? Clearly not. And CASTING one vote carries with it the
subsumed
implication of CONTROLLING ONE VOTE during a vote.
== The rule of "one person, one vote" is a fundamental principle,
though,
and could be taken to be an attempt to reach voting power. In
that
spirit, it makes sense that, since we need to make a judgment
anyway,
we should make those choices which minimize the power
discrepancy.
That choice seems to be the one the LNC used in the past when
it
comes
to email ballots - the person must state before voting begins
which
position they will vote. But that itself creates its own
unfairness
-
it implies that anyone else could keep them from voting simply
by
voting before they declare their position. So I don't think
that's
feasible.===
Perfect! Yes. That is why I said above that it would create a
procedure problem. That procedure problem could be cured by the
Secretary writing the member before the ballot starts and ask
them what
capacity they intend to vote as. I agree one cannot create
unfairness
against the person holding two seats. Your bolded words were
very on
point and much more succinct than I was.
My goal is to be fair to all concerned. Thank you Joshua - any
other
insight you have would be greatly appreciated. You really
helped.
Its been quite a stumper to people I have asked. Richard was a
good one
because he is familiar with us and how we work.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Joshua Katz
<[1][2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
<[1][2][3]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][3][4]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][4][5]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][5][6]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][6][7]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][7][8]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][8][9]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][9][10]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][10][11]http://www.
lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[9][10][11][12]planning4lib
erty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[10][11][12][13]carynannharlos at gmail.com
3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
4. [12][12][13][14]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[13][14][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[14][15][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[15][16][17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[16][17][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[17][18][19]planning4liberty at gmail.com
6. mailto:[18][19][20]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[19][20][21]carynannharlos at gmail.com
8. [20][21][22]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
9. mailto:[21][22][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[22][23][24]carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
12. [24][24][25]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[25][26]tim.hagan at lp.org
2. mailto:[26][27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[27][28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[28][29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[29][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[30][31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:[31][32]planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:[32][33]carynannharlos at gmail.com
9. [33][34]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:[34][35]planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:[35][36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. [36][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:[37][38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:[38][39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:[39][40]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[40][41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[41][42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
18. mailto:[42][43]planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:[43][44]carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. [44][45]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:[45][46]planning4liberty at gmail.com
22. mailto:[46][47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
24. [48][48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[49]planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:[50]tim.hagan at lp.org
3. mailto:[51]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[52]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[53]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[54]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[55]planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:[56]planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:[57]carynannharlos at gmail.com
10. [58]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
11. mailto:[59]planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:[60]carynannharlos at gmail.com
13. [61]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
14. mailto:[62]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:[63]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:[64]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:[65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:[66]planning4liberty at gmail.com
19. mailto:[67]planning4liberty at gmail.com
20. mailto:[68]carynannharlos at gmail.com
21. [69]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
22. mailto:[70]planning4liberty at gmail.com
23. mailto:[71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
24. [72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
25. mailto:[73]tim.hagan at lp.org
26. mailto:[74]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[75]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[76]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:[77]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:[78]planning4liberty at gmail.com
31. mailto:[79]planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:[80]carynannharlos at gmail.com
33. [81]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:[82]planning4liberty at gmail.com
35. mailto:[83]carynannharlos at gmail.com
36. [84]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. mailto:[85]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
38. mailto:[86]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:[87]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. mailto:[88]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
41. mailto:[89]planning4liberty at gmail.com
42. mailto:[90]planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:[91]carynannharlos at gmail.com
44. [92]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
45. mailto:[93]planning4liberty at gmail.com
46. mailto:[94]carynannharlos at gmail.com
47. mailto:[95]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
48. [96]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
3. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
11. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
12. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
13. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
14. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
19. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
20. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
21. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
22. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
23. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
24. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
25. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
26. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
33. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
34. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
35. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
36. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
41. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
42. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
44. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
45. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
46. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
47. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
49. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
50. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
51. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
52. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
54. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
55. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
56. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
57. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
58. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
59. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
60. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
61. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
62. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
63. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
64. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
66. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
67. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
68. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
69. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
70. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
71. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
73. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
75. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
76. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
78. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
79. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
80. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
81. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
82. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
83. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
84. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
85. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
86. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
87. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
88. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
89. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
90. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
91. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
92. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
93. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
94. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
95. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
96. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list