[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