[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question

Daniel Hayes daniel.hayes at lp.org
Tue Feb 27 10:25:45 EST 2018


Caryn Ann

You will create more loop holes with that language.

Daniel

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 1:57 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>   Thank you Tim, yes, I did examine that, and that is the counter to my
>   argument that there is an ambiguity.  Obviously the Bylaws saw fit to
>   be clear there.  I think another Bylaw change is in order, and I will
>   likely submit it.  It should be relatively noncontroversial that at
>   convention no person can be elected to more than one LNC seat
>   (including alternates).  It would be more controversial for committees
>   but the same reasoning applies.
> 
>   On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:55 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
>   <[2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>        Joshua A. Katz
>        On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
>     <[1][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][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][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][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][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][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][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][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][11]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>               References
>                  1. mailto:[9][10][12]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>                  2. mailto:[10][11][13]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>                  3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>                  4. [12][12][14]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>          References
>             1. mailto:[13][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>             2. mailto:[14][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>             3. mailto:[15][17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>             4. mailto:[16][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>             5. mailto:[17][19]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>             6. mailto:[18][20]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>             7. mailto:[19][21]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>             8. [20][22]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>             9. mailto:[21][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>            10. mailto:[22][24]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>            11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>            12. [24][25]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>     References
>        1. mailto:[26]tim.hagan at lp.org
>        2. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>        3. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>        4. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>        5. mailto:[30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>        6. mailto:[31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 
>      7. mailto:[32]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>      8. mailto:[33]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>      9. [34]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>     10. mailto:[35]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>     11. mailto:[36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>     12. [37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>     13. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>     14. mailto:[39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>     15. mailto:[40]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>     16. mailto:[41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>     17. mailto:[42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>     18. mailto:[43]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>     19. mailto:[44]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>     20. [45]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>     21. mailto:[46]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>     22. mailto:[47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>     23. mailto:[48]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>     24. [49]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. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>  49. http://www.lpcolorado.org/




More information about the Lnc-business mailing list