[Lnc-business] A hypothetical question

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Feb 27 10:37:19 EST 2018


Btw I will be sending this link to Richard - he had much more limited
information when we spoke and this further discussion may give him
different insight.




On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:34 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> That does make a lot of sense but I see one problem (surprise!) well two
>
> In my daily devotional with RONR I discover that we vote wrong at our
> meetings see page 421
>
> But would we in a live meeting going around a table allow someone to
> choose what hat they are voting under when we get to them?  Again that’s an
> advantage no one else has and I don’t think it has to be mathematically
> quantified other than reasonably possible to happen.
>
> The idea of the email vote is a poor simulation of a live roll call vote
> and a good reference point is what that would entail and thus Richard’s
> point that the hat must be declared at the meeting - a perspective I am now
> starting to share.
>
> The thing about notifying the appointing body of the dual representation
> is a bit of a secondary point for me/ and I’m out of time but will respond
> further to that tonight.
>
> I think your bolded principle from my response last night is a good
> controlling guideline and yes reasonable people may disagree within a
> certain margin how to apply it.
>
> More to think about, thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>    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/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Btw I will be sending this link to Richard - he had much more limited
   information when we spoke and this further discussion may give him
   different insight.

   On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:34 AM Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   That does make a lot of sense but I see one problem (surprise!) well
   two
   In my daily devotional with RONR I discover that we vote wrong at our
   meetings see page 421
   But would we in a live meeting going around a table allow someone to
   choose what hat they are voting under when we get to them?  Again
   that’s an advantage no one else has and I don’t think it has to be
   mathematically quantified other than reasonably possible to happen.
   The idea of the email vote is a poor simulation of a live roll call
   vote and a good reference point is what that would entail and thus
   Richard’s point that the hat must be declared at the meeting - a
   perspective I am now starting to share.
   The thing about notifying the appointing body of the dual
   representation is a bit of a secondary point for me/ and I’m out of
   time but will respond further to that tonight.
   I think your bolded principle from my response last night is a good
   controlling guideline and yes reasonable people may disagree within a
   certain margin how to apply it.
   More to think about, thanks!

   On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Joshua Katz
   <[2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

        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][3]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][4]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
                  Joshua A. Katz
                  On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Tim Hagan
               <[1][2][3][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]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][13]http://www.
          [14]lpcolorado.org/
                         References
                            1. mailto:[9][10][11][12]planning4lib
          [15]erty at gmail.com
                            2.
     mailto:[10][11][12][13][16]carynannharlos at gmail.com
                            3. mailto:[11]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
                            4.
     [12][12][13][14][17]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
                    References
                       1. mailto:[13][14][15][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                       2. mailto:[14][15][16][19]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                       3. mailto:[15][16][17][20]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                       4. mailto:[16][17][18][21]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                       5.
     mailto:[17][18][19][22]planning4liberty at gmail.com
                       6.
     mailto:[18][19][20][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
                       7. mailto:[19][20][21][24]carynannharlos at gmail.com
                       8. [20][21][22][25]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
                       9.
     mailto:[21][22][23][26]planning4liberty at gmail.com
                      10. mailto:[22][23][24][27]carynannharlos at gmail.com
                      11. mailto:[23]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
                      12. [24][24][25][28]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
               References
                  1. mailto:[25][26][29]tim.hagan at lp.org
                  2. mailto:[26][27][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  3. mailto:[27][28][31]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  4. mailto:[28][29][32]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  5. mailto:[29][30][33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  6. mailto:[30][31][34]planning4liberty at gmail.com
                7. mailto:[31][32][35]planning4liberty at gmail.com
                8. mailto:[32][33][36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
                9. [33][34][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
               10. mailto:[34][35][38]planning4liberty at gmail.com
               11. mailto:[35][36][39]carynannharlos at gmail.com
               12. [36][37][40]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
               13. mailto:[37][38][41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
               14. mailto:[38][39][42]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
               15. mailto:[39][40][43]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
               16. mailto:[40][41][44]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
               17. mailto:[41][42][45]planning4liberty at gmail.com
               18. mailto:[42][43][46]planning4liberty at gmail.com
               19. mailto:[43][44][47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
               20. [44][45][48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
               21. mailto:[45][46][49]planning4liberty at gmail.com
               22. mailto:[46][47][50]carynannharlos at gmail.com
               23. mailto:[47]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
               24. [48][48][51]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
          References
             1. mailto:[49][52]planning4liberty at gmail.com
             2. mailto:[50][53]tim.hagan at lp.org
             3. mailto:[51][54]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             4. mailto:[52][55]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             5. mailto:[53][56]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             6. mailto:[54][57]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             7. mailto:[55][58]planning4liberty at gmail.com
             8. mailto:[56][59]planning4liberty at gmail.com
             9. mailto:[57][60]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            10. [58][61]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            11. mailto:[59][62]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            12. mailto:[60][63]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            13. [61][64]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            14. mailto:[62][65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            15. mailto:[63][66]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            16. mailto:[64][67]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            17. mailto:[65][68]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            18. mailto:[66][69]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            19. mailto:[67][70]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            20. mailto:[68][71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            21. [69][72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            22. mailto:[70][73]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            23. mailto:[71][74]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            24. [72][75]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            25. mailto:[73][76]tim.hagan at lp.org
            26. mailto:[74][77]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            27. mailto:[75][78]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            28. mailto:[76][79]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            29. mailto:[77][80]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            30. mailto:[78][81]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            31. mailto:[79][82]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            32. mailto:[80][83]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            33. [81][84]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            34. mailto:[82][85]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            35. mailto:[83][86]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            36. [84][87]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            37. mailto:[85][88]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            38. mailto:[86][89]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            39. mailto:[87][90]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            40. mailto:[88][91]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            41. mailto:[89][92]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            42. mailto:[90][93]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            43. mailto:[91][94]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            44. [92][95]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
            45. mailto:[93][96]planning4liberty at gmail.com
            46. mailto:[94][97]carynannharlos at gmail.com
            47. mailto:[95]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
            48. [96][98]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
     References
        1. mailto:[99]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[100]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        3. mailto:[101]tim.hagan at lp.org
        4. mailto:[102]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        5. mailto:[103]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        6. mailto:[104]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        7. mailto:[105]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        8. mailto:[106]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        9. mailto:[107]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       10. mailto:[108]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       11. [109]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       12. mailto:[110]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       13. mailto:[111]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       14. [112]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       15. mailto:[113]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       16. mailto:[114]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       17. mailto:[115]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       18. mailto:[116]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       19. mailto:[117]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       20. mailto:[118]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       21. mailto:[119]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       22. [120]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       23. mailto:[121]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       24. mailto:[122]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       25. [123]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       26. mailto:[124]tim.hagan at lp.org
       27. mailto:[125]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       28. mailto:[126]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       29. mailto:[127]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       30. mailto:[128]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       31. mailto:[129]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       32. mailto:[130]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       33. mailto:[131]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       34. [132]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       35. mailto:[133]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       36. mailto:[134]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       37. [135]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       38. mailto:[136]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       39. mailto:[137]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       40. mailto:[138]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       41. mailto:[139]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       42. mailto:[140]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       43. mailto:[141]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       44. mailto:[142]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       45. [143]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       46. mailto:[144]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       47. mailto:[145]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       48. [146]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       49. mailto:[147]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       50. mailto:[148]tim.hagan at lp.org
       51. mailto:[149]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       52. mailto:[150]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       53. mailto:[151]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       54. mailto:[152]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       55. mailto:[153]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       56. mailto:[154]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       57. mailto:[155]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       58. [156]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       59. mailto:[157]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       60. mailto:[158]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       61. [159]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       62. mailto:[160]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       63. mailto:[161]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       64. mailto:[162]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       65. mailto:[163]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       66. mailto:[164]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       67. mailto:[165]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       68. mailto:[166]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       69. [167]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       70. mailto:[168]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       71. mailto:[169]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       72. [170]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       73. mailto:[171]tim.hagan at lp.org
       74. mailto:[172]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       75. mailto:[173]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       76. mailto:[174]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       77. mailto:[175]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       78. mailto:[176]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       79. mailto:[177]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       80. mailto:[178]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       81. [179]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       82. mailto:[180]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       83. mailto:[181]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       84. [182]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       85. mailto:[183]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       86. mailto:[184]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       87. mailto:[185]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       88. mailto:[186]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       89. mailto:[187]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       90. mailto:[188]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       91. mailto:[189]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       92. [190]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
       93. mailto:[191]planning4liberty at gmail.com
       94. mailto:[192]carynannharlos at gmail.com
       95. mailto:[193]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
       96. [194]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   4. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   5. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
   6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  12. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  13. http://www/
  14. http://lpcolorado.org/
  15. mailto:erty at gmail.com
  16. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  19. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  20. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  21. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  22. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  23. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  24. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  25. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  26. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  27. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  28. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  29. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
  30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  31. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  32. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  34. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  35. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  36. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  38. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  39. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  41. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  42. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  43. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  44. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  45. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  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:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  51. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  52. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  53. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
  54. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  56. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  57. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  58. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  59. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  60. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  61. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  62. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  63. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  64. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  66. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  67. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  68. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  69. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  70. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  71. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  73. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  74. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  75. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  76. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
  77. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  78. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  79. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  80. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  81. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  82. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  83. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  84. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  85. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  86. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  87. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  88. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  89. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  90. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  91. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  92. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  93. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  94. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  95. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  96. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  97. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  98. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  99. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 100. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 101. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
 102. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 103. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 104. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 105. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 106. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 107. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 108. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 109. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 110. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 111. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 113. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 114. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 115. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 116. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 117. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 118. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 119. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 120. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 121. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 122. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 123. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 124. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
 125. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 126. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 127. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 128. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 129. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 130. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 131. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 132. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 133. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 134. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 135. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 136. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 137. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 138. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 139. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 140. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 141. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 142. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 143. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 144. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 145. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 146. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 147. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 148. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
 149. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 150. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 151. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 152. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 153. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 154. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 155. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 156. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 157. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 158. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 159. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 160. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 161. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 162. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 163. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 164. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 165. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 166. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 167. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 168. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 169. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 170. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 171. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
 172. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 173. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 174. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 175. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 176. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 177. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 178. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 179. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 180. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 181. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 182. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 183. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 184. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 185. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 186. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
 187. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 188. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 189. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 190. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 191. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
 192. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
 193. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 194. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list