[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-11: ACKNOWLEDGE ELECTION OF JC

[Alicia Mattson]

Caryn Ann, you seem to be conflating your complaints about the at-large
process with the judicial committee situation.  I at least know what you
mean when you speak of "undue influence" in the at-large, but what was the
"undue influence" you speak of as it relates to the judicial committee race?

-Alicia


On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    So odd this was in my read folder but unread.  I see that Richard has
>    evolved in his opinion and I am very glad that Joe contacted him.
>    And this solidifies me in mine - I am sure no one is surprised.
>    Alicia is absolutely right on the parliamentary angle of this motion,
>    and I think mostly right about an email ballot.  Perhaps even
>    absolutely right on that, but that is where I debate from RONR for
>    matters of equity.
>    The LNC cannot have the appearance of having its hand in the JC
>    process.  To me that makes this motion dead on arrival both on
>    principle and parliamentary grounds.
>    However the JC protects the membership and I don't think that right can
>    be waived without full knowledge.
>    This is where my (at times mocked, and hopefully now people see that I
>    have a point) position that the delegates were unduly influenced to a
>    certain decision and simply trusted our Chair is coming home to roost.
>    There is no way in the world that any of us believes that the INTENDED
>    NOT TO HAVE A JC.  In fact that is the motive behind this motion.  They
>    never intended that and trusted the Chair.
>    So in light of this mess of our own making, what is the best way to
>    follow the rules AND MITIGATE THE UNDUE INFLUENCE WE HAD in making this
>    mess.
>    An email vote.  If this motion fails, I intend upon introducing a
>    motion to do just that.  Do I think it will pass?  No.  But this turns
>    upon such a point of principle that it needs to be on record.
>    I am all ears to another method that doesn't leave us without a JC.
>    Because the members deserve one.  And we just tainted our whole two
>    years with permission to be as renegade as we wish (if we wished)
>    because there is no guard on the tower.
>    This is why Erin used what some saw as intemperate language.  I think
>    some (particularly newer members) are now seeing the bigger issue here
>    and why I was so stubborn in the beginning.
>    Ironically if this motion passes it may be the first thing to be
>    appealed to the illegitimate JC.  Which puts them in a position of then
>    declaring their own legitimacy which might be the best outcome of all.
>    I will not take the time to appeal but it is what I will encourage
>    members who see the unintended Trojan Horse consequences of this motion
>    to do.
>    This is fundamentally a matter of principle.  Both of Libertarian
>    principles, our Bylaws, and Parliamentary law.
>    -Caryn Ann
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Caryn Ann, you seem to be conflating your complaints about the at-large
   process with the judicial committee situation.  I at least know what
   you mean when you speak of "undue influence" in the at-large, but what
   was the "undue influence" you speak of as it relates to the judicial
   committee race?
   -Alicia
   On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        So odd this was in my read folder but unread.  I see that Richard
     has
        evolved in his opinion and I am very glad that Joe contacted him.
        And this solidifies me in mine - I am sure no one is surprised.
        Alicia is absolutely right on the parliamentary angle of this
     motion,
        and I think mostly right about an email ballot.  Perhaps even
        absolutely right on that, but that is where I debate from RONR
     for
        matters of equity.
        The LNC cannot have the appearance of having its hand in the JC
        process.  To me that makes this motion dead on arrival both on
        principle and parliamentary grounds.
        However the JC protects the membership and I don't think that
     right can
        be waived without full knowledge.
        This is where my (at times mocked, and hopefully now people see
     that I
        have a point) position that the delegates were unduly influenced
     to a
        certain decision and simply trusted our Chair is coming home to
     roost.
        There is no way in the world that any of us believes that the
     INTENDED
        NOT TO HAVE A JC.  In fact that is the motive behind this
     motion.  They
        never intended that and trusted the Chair.
        So in light of this mess of our own making, what is the best way
     to
        follow the rules AND MITIGATE THE UNDUE INFLUENCE WE HAD in
     making this
        mess.
        An email vote.  If this motion fails, I intend upon introducing a
        motion to do just that.  Do I think it will pass?  No.  But this
     turns
        upon such a point of principle that it needs to be on record.
        I am all ears to another method that doesn't leave us without a
     JC.
        Because the members deserve one.  And we just tainted our whole
     two
        years with permission to be as renegade as we wish (if we wished)
        because there is no guard on the tower.
        This is why Erin used what some saw as intemperate language.  I
     think
        some (particularly newer members) are now seeing the bigger issue
     here
        and why I was so stubborn in the beginning.
        Ironically if this motion passes it may be the first thing to be
        appealed to the illegitimate JC.  Which puts them in a position
     of then
        declaring their own legitimacy which might be the best outcome of
     all.
        I will not take the time to appeal but it is what I will
     encourage
        members who see the unintended Trojan Horse consequences of this
     motion
        to do.
        This is fundamentally a matter of principle.  Both of Libertarian
        principles, our Bylaws, and Parliamentary law.
        -Caryn Ann

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org