[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