[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Wed Jul 25 07:20:55 EDT 2018
Caryn Ann,
I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of the script. How
rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being misrepresented.
Defense is now accused of being aggression and hostility.
When I initially pointed out that it was unfair representation to say I
would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit. Later you expressed that you do
actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I pointed out it’s
not what I said. You projected your complaints about the first tally onto
a future audit by others. You continued to re-characterize my proposal
that I, "sit in a corner and work on something else while they do their
task" as "being involved", which sounds like something different.
I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in the
Secretary's race. I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah tally sheet in
this At-Large race in which he was a candidate. After telling everyone
else that EVH noticed that they had also committed lapses of judgment,
you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic that I cannot even sit in the
corner of the room, lest my presence hypnotize Nick's chosen independent
auditors into failing to do their job, but you would be happy to be present
instead, as if you were some kind of non-partisan here.
Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I presume him to be
the candidate about whom you have publicly described as having been
"screwed by this whole process", in the next breath calling it a "suspect
election". You didn’t say all candidates were screwed by the process, just
one particular candidate, as though he was entitled to win but he didn’t.
That told me you were unhappy with the result.
When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections that I
tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you had already
expressed displeasure with the result, out came the victim card. You said
I was attacking you, and ridiculously accused me of using a "shaming and
silencing tactic", though 1 out of every 3 emails to this list is from you.
While I was spending many hours assembling more-than-requested information,
and giving you updates on my progress, I was accused of "ignoring" the
situation. When you singled out Aaron with no mention of the others, we
got the drama of, “I think the optic of this make Arvin's comments look
like the height of civility.” Really? Worse than a guy saying school
board shootings are a good idea? Worse than Arvin’s philosophies about
14-year-old girls?
You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet you think it's
fine for you to be present for the next audit, but somehow it’s a “huge
mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner and do something else
while others do the audit.
The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not accurately
portray the situation. I realize you haven’t had to actually do the job
yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to get the data
assembled and announced. It feels like installing a roof during a
hurricane.
I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two largest, with
an unusually large number of candidates this year. The 2018 At-Large race
had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36 options. (In 2016, only 418
delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
This year, while the tellers were still trying to double-check the At-Large
tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and collect the ballots on
which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial Committee candidates. I was
running out of At-Large data to enter because the tellers were spread too
thin by the overlapping elections.
To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a higher chance of
getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to assist, plus a
couple of more tellers. Aaron is a former auditor, and his brain is wired
to find anomalies in a system. I knew he would do the job well, cleanly,
and help train the other newcomers so we could keep the At-Large process
moving. And he did.
Aaron worked with a partner. When they checked California’s submission,
right off the bat they realized that the number of votes written on the
ballots was one more than the total on the tally sheet. When they realized
the discrepancy impacted my vote total, Aaron stepped back and asked two
other tellers to verify it and have them – not him – make the change to the
tally sheet and sign it. Aaron also insisted that several others present
witness a recount of the California ballots that had my name on it.
At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to ultimately be. I
was only partially through data entry. Perhaps people imagine that I’m up
there looking at the totals every few seconds so that I constantly know
where it stands, but the push to get the job done ASAP means that all I can
afford to think about is keeping the data entry moving and watching for any
anomalies. Another teller was beside me for the duration of the data entry.
Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone just wasn't
precise in their choice of words. It would require a time machine for the
situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was a tie until Mr.
Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in CA.” That phrasing could
give the reader the impression that all the data entry was done, we knew it
was a tie, and we went searching for a way to break the tie. That didn’t
happen. Many people were standing around waiting for the data entry to be
complete, and snapshots of my screen were taken within a few seconds of
data entry being completed and sorted into a ranking order to see just how
close it was.
Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the California ballots
contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when the data entry
was LATER completed, the initially-reported results would have mistakenly
been reported as a tie, and it would have been REALLY awkward had this fact
gone unnoticed until post-convention. Instead, it was noticed in the
presence of, and was verified and corrected by, other tellers before the
initially-reported results.
For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move to electronic
voting. The delegates have previously rejected it, leaving me with no
choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix the errors before the
initial results. I have been pointing out how error-susceptible our
human-tallying elections are. I have been educating about how difficult it
is to get exact results with the time pressures, multi-tasking, noise
levels, disruption levels, etc. that are experienced during the
convention. I have argued against the convention conducting other business
during the votes because it makes it harder to get the really important
tallying job done.
I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10, adopted by delegates
to require tellers to double-check the state tallies, and to require the
on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet (previously that step was often
skipped just to save time). Though it still doesn’t fix everything, those
things do increase the number of errors we catch onsite before the results
are displayed.
For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric as someone who
ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party look worse than Arvin
Vohra did, and now to have you taint the perception of the future audit
with misrepresentations of my words…well, that’s just a special
experience. I do not deserve that.
-Alicia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here. Your comment is
> completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that you stop the
> personal hostility. But you are free to make it, and I shall decline to
> engage further. All those allegedly are a smooth way to try to call me a
> liar.
>
> I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past (intelligence,
> skill-set, competence). I do think being involved in this count at all
> both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I also think -
> and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out - that delegation
> chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step in judgment as well. And
> I do think you should step out of this entire process entirely.
>
> PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I would not say
> that to them. The reason I was reluctant to share it is precisely because
> of this. It seems you want to keep making things personal between you and
> me. They are not. A political race is not personal. I never got personal
> with you or about you in my campaign, and I don't intend to start now.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Caryn Ann,
>> When you received this feedback from the anonymous member, you had the
>> opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said. Go back and read
>> her post again." Instead you repeated the misrepresentation, with all
>> its implications, here on a public list to give it a broad audience.
>> For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and allegedly has
>> respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to pass along", ya
>> just flopped it right out there... Don't pretend that you had an
>> obligation to do it. You're not fooling anyone with this game.
>> -Alicia
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Alicia I am passing along directly what the member said. That member
>> reads the list and can decide if they think they were being unfair. I
>> did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to pass along but
>> it is member feedback.
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>> <[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote me
>> and
>> inquired if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
>> Seriously? Do you think that's a fair way to portray what I
>> proposed?
>> What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner and work on
>> something
>> else while they do their task, but if at some point their number
>> doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it right then
>> without
>> going back and forth via email."
>> I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone, and you could
>> personally supervise if you wish."
>> I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited Nick to
>> supervise.
>> -Alicia
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote me and
>> inquired
>> if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
>> Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots are a better
>> solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make myself available as
>> the
>> current Secretary to be personally present at any audit.
>> I can then confer with Alicia about any issues found.
>> -Caryn Ann
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[2][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
>>
>> <[3][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Sorry for needing to send one more email on this subject,
>> however, it
>> has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in the
>> Secretary's
>> report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the footnote
>> that
>> I
>> wrote will make me sound like a person who can't subtract 12
>> from
>> 19.
>> I should have written the footnote to be more specific as
>> follows:
>> * Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m. Pacific on
>> 07/11/18 to
>> 11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a voting period
>> which
>> exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief that the
>> end
>> date
>> should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18. During this final
>> day
>> of
>> voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his vote from
>> "no"
>> to
>> "yes". These reported results reflect the changed vote during
>> the
>> disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote is not
>> impacted
>> by
>> the question of how to report this one vote.
>> -Alicia
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> <[1][4][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> I added that note to the tally sheet and will include that
>> in my
>> Secretary's Report.
>> -Caryn Ann
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia Mattson via
>> Lnc-business
>>
>> <[2][5][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Since these results include a vote change during the final
>> day, I
>> do
>> think these results need to be footnoted as follows:
>> * Since the published ending time of the ballot resulted
>> in
>> a
>> voting
>> period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a
>> belief
>> that
>> the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18.
>> During
>> this
>> final day of voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed
>> his
>> vote
>> from "no" to "yes". These reported results reflect the
>> changed
>> vote
>> during the disputed time period, but the outcome of the
>> vote
>> is
>> not
>> impacted by the question of how to report this one vote.
>> If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't impact the
>> result, I
>> won't
>> feel a need to raise a point of order about the reported
>> results
>> and
>> ask the LNC to make a decision on how to report that vote
>> change.
>> -Alicia
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
>> Lnc-business
>>
>> <[1][3][6][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> Voting has ENDED for the email ballot TITLE Voting
>> "aye":
>> Bilyeu,
>> Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth, Lyons, Mattson,
>> Merced,
>> Phillips,
>> Redpath, Smith Voting "nay": Bishop-Henchman,
>> Goldstein, Van
>> Horn
>> Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila With a final
>> vote
>> tally
>> of
>> 11-3-2,
>> the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did not vote. You
>> can
>> keep
>> track
>> of
>> the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
>> [1][2][4][7][9]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William Redpath
>> via
>> Lnc-business
>> <[2][3][5][8][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> I will change my vote on an LNC At-Large voting
>> audit
>> to
>> Yes.
>> Bill
>> Redpath
>> On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson via
>> Lnc-business
>> wrote:
>> I vote yes.
>> -Alicia
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Caryn Ann
>> Harlos
>> via
>> Lnc-business
>>
>> <[1][3][4][6][9][11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>
>> wrote:
>> We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes
>> are
>> due
>> to the
>> LNC-Business
>> list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific
>> time.
>> Co-Sponsors:
>> Bowden,
>> Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
>> Motion: Move that the LNC would have an
>> audit
>> of
>> the At
>> Large
>> ballots
>> done by two independent auditors appointed
>> by
>> the
>> Chair, ie
>> someone not
>> in the race. You can keep track of the
>> Secretary's
>> manual
>> tally
>> of
>> votes here:
>>
>> [1][2][4][5][7][10][12]https://tinyurl.co
>> m/lncvoting
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian
>> National
>> Committee
>> Secretary
>> - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or
>> Secretary at LP.org.
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation
>> Committee -
>> LPedia at LP.org
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> We defend your rights
>> And oppose the use of force
>> Taxation is theft
>> References
>> 1. [3][5][6][8][11][13]https://tinyur
>> l.co
>> m/lncvoting
>> 2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-busine
>> ss at hq.lp.org
>> 2. [7][8][10][13][15]https://tinyurl.
>> com/lncvoting
>> 3. [8][9][11][14][16]https://tinyurl.
>> com/lncvoting
>> 4. mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> --
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National
>> Committee
>> Secretary
>> - [10]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or
>> Secretary at LP.org.
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -
>> LPedia at LP.org
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> We defend your rights
>> And oppose the use of force
>> Taxation is theft
>>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
-------------- next part --------------
Caryn Ann,
I see we have again reached the play-the-victim portion of the script.
How rude of me to defend my actual words when they are being
misrepresented. Defense is now accused of being aggression and
hostility.
When I initially pointed out that it was unfair representation to say I
would be supervising the audit, your first reaction was the
not-me-and-I-didn't-want-to-do-it bit. Later you expressed that you do
actually agree with the mischaracterization, even after I pointed out
it’s not what I said. You projected your complaints about the first
tally onto a future audit by others. You continued to re-characterize
my proposal that I, "sit in a corner and work on something else while
they do their task" as "being involved", which sounds like something
different.
I see Wayne Harlos' signature on the Colorado tally sheet in the
Secretary's race. I see Dr. Buchman's signature on the Utah tally
sheet in this At-Large race in which he was a candidate. After
telling everyone else that EVH noticed that they had also committed
lapses of judgment, you're now suggesting that I'm so toxic that I
cannot even sit in the corner of the room, lest my presence hypnotize
Nick's chosen independent auditors into failing to do their job, but
you would be happy to be present instead, as if you were some kind of
non-partisan here.
Don't forget that you were a nominator for Dr. Buchman. I presume him
to be the candidate about whom you have publicly described as having
been "screwed by this whole process", in the next breath calling it a
"suspect election". You didn’t say all candidates were screwed by the
process, just one particular candidate, as though he was entitled to
win but he didn’t. That told me you were unhappy with the result.
When I noted your call for recount wasn’t in both elections that I
tabulated in which I was a candidate, only the one where you had
already expressed displeasure with the result, out came the victim
card. You said I was attacking you, and ridiculously accused me of
using a "shaming and silencing tactic", though 1 out of every 3 emails
to this list is from you.
While I was spending many hours assembling more-than-requested
information, and giving you updates on my progress, I was accused of
"ignoring" the situation. When you singled out Aaron with no mention
of the others, we got the drama of, “I think the optic of this make
Arvin's comments look like the height of civility.” Really? Worse
than a guy saying school board shootings are a good idea? Worse than
Arvin’s philosophies about 14-year-old girls?
You're not exactly a neutral party in this matter, and yet you think
it's fine for you to be present for the next audit, but somehow it’s a
“huge mis-step in judgment” for me to even sit in a corner and do
something else while others do the audit.
The comments you posted here about Aaron’s role also do not accurately
portray the situation. I realize you haven’t had to actually do the
job yet, so you haven’t experienced that time pressure to get the data
assembled and announced. It feels like installing a roof during a
hurricane.
I have manually tallied three conventions, including our two largest,
with an unusually large number of candidates this year. The 2018
At-Large race had 604 delegates voting for a whopping 36 options. (In
2016, only 418 delegates voted for 20 At-Large options.)
This year, while the tellers were still trying to double-check the
At-Large tally sheets, we had to pause and distribute and collect the
ballots on which 501 delegates voted for 22 Judicial Committee
candidates. I was running out of At-Large data to enter because the
tellers were spread too thin by the overlapping elections.
To keep the process from completely stalling, and have a higher chance
of getting results before adjournment, I pulled Aaron in to assist,
plus a couple of more tellers. Aaron is a former auditor, and his
brain is wired to find anomalies in a system. I knew he would do the
job well, cleanly, and help train the other newcomers so we could keep
the At-Large process moving. And he did.
Aaron worked with a partner. When they checked California’s
submission, right off the bat they realized that the number of votes
written on the ballots was one more than the total on the tally sheet.
When they realized the discrepancy impacted my vote total, Aaron
stepped back and asked two other tellers to verify it and have them –
not him – make the change to the tally sheet and sign it. Aaron also
insisted that several others present witness a recount of the
California ballots that had my name on it.
At that point NOBODY knew how close the race was going to ultimately
be. I was only partially through data entry. Perhaps people imagine
that I’m up there looking at the totals every few seconds so that I
constantly know where it stands, but the push to get the job done ASAP
means that all I can afford to think about is keeping the data entry
moving and watching for any anomalies. Another teller was beside me
for the duration of the data entry.
Regarding the “rumor” as you called it, I suspect someone just wasn't
precise in their choice of words. It would require a time machine for
the situation to have been, “…the vote for the last seat was a tie
until Mr. Starr found an additional vote for Ms. Mattson in CA.” That
phrasing could give the reader the impression that all the data entry
was done, we knew it was a tie, and we went searching for a way to
break the tie. That didn’t happen. Many people were standing around
waiting for the data entry to be complete, and snapshots of my screen
were taken within a few seconds of data entry being completed and
sorted into a ranking order to see just how close it was.
Had Aaron and his fellow teller not noticed that the California ballots
contained one more vote than was on the tally sheet, when the data
entry was LATER completed, the initially-reported results would have
mistakenly been reported as a tie, and it would have been REALLY
awkward had this fact gone unnoticed until post-convention. Instead,
it was noticed in the presence of, and was verified and corrected by,
other tellers before the initially-reported results.
For most of a decade, I have been saying that we should move to
electronic voting. The delegates have previously rejected it, leaving
me with no choice but to do my best to try to catch and fix the errors
before the initial results. I have been pointing out how
error-susceptible our human-tallying elections are. I have been
educating about how difficult it is to get exact results with the time
pressures, multi-tasking, noise levels, disruption levels, etc. that
are experienced during the convention. I have argued against the
convention conducting other business during the votes because it makes
it harder to get the really important tallying job done.
I wrote the proposal which became Convention Rule 10, adopted by
delegates to require tellers to double-check the state tallies, and to
require the on-screen review of the tally spreadsheet (previously that
step was often skipped just to save time). Though it still doesn’t fix
everything, those things do increase the number of errors we catch
onsite before the results are displayed.
For me to now be portrayed with such inflammatory rhetoric as someone
who ran a “suspect election”, as someone making the party look worse
than Arvin Vohra did, and now to have you taint the perception of the
future audit with misrepresentations of my words…well, that’s just a
special experience. I do not deserve that.
-Alicia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Alicia, I am not going to engage the aggression here. Your comment is
completely out of bounds on multiple levels and I ask that you stop the
personal hostility. But you are free to make it, and I shall decline
to engage further. All those allegedly are a smooth way to try to call
me a liar.
I do respect you for all the reason I said in the past (intelligence,
skill-set, competence). I do think being involved in this count at all
both past and present is a huge mis-step in judgment. And I also think
- and communicated to the persons that EVH pointed out - that
delegation chairs similarly situated demonstrated a mis-step in
judgment as well. And I do think you should step out of this entire
process entirely.
PS: I don't think the member was entirely incorrect so I would not say
that to them. The reason I was reluctant to share it is precisely
because of this. It seems you want to keep making things personal
between you and me. They are not. A political race is not personal.
I never got personal with you or about you in my campaign, and I don't
intend to start now.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
When you received this feedback from the anonymous member, you
had the
opportunity to tell them, "That's not what she said. Go back and
read
her post again." Instead you repeated the misrepresentation,
with all
its implications, here on a public list to give it a broad
audience.
For someone who allegedly is not attacking me, and allegedly has
respect for me, and allegedly "did not even want to pass along",
ya
just flopped it right out there... Don't pretend that you had an
obligation to do it. You're not fooling anyone with this game.
-Alicia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Alicia I am passing along directly what the member said. That
member
reads the list and can decide if they think they were being
unfair. I
did not solicit this feedback and did not even want to pass along
but
it is member feedback.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[2][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH> A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote
me
and
inquired if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
Seriously? Do you think that's a fair way to portray what I
proposed?
What I actually said was, "I can sit in a corner and work on
something
else while they do their task, but if at some point their
number
doesn't match mine, we can all take a look at it right then
without
going back and forth via email."
I also said to Nick, "Phoenix is within that zone, and you
could
personally supervise if you wish."
I suggested that I sit in a corner, and I invited Nick to
supervise.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
A concerned member (no permission to share name) wrote me
and
inquired
if any audit should be supervised by a candidate.
Since I agree with Alicia that the actual ballots are a
better
solution, if the Chair wishes it, I can make myself
available as
the
current Secretary to be personally present at any audit.
I can then confer with Alicia about any issues found.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2][4][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I will make those two changes thank you Alicia.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[3][5][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Sorry for needing to send one more email on this subject,
however, it
has occurred to me that if the start/end dates in the
Secretary's
report are listed as 07/12/18 to 07/19/18, then the footnote
that
I
wrote will make me sound like a person who can't subtract 12
from
19.
I should have written the footnote to be more specific as
follows:
* Since the published vote period of 11:53 p.m. Pacific on
07/11/18 to
11:59:59 p.m. Pacific on 07/19/18 resulted in a voting
period
which
exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed a belief that the
end
date
should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18. During this
final
day
of
voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath changed his vote from
"no"
to
"yes". These reported results reflect the changed vote
during
the
disputed time period, but the outcome of the vote is not
impacted
by
the question of how to report this one vote.
-Alicia
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][4][6][8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I added that note to the tally sheet and will include
that
in my
Secretary's Report.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
<[2][5][7][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Since these results include a vote change during the
final
day, I
do
think these results need to be footnoted as follows:
* Since the published ending time of the ballot
resulted
in
a
voting
period which exceeded 8 days, Ms. Mattson had expressed
a
belief
that
the end date should be changed from 7/19/18 to 7/18/18.
During
this
final day of voting which is disputed, Mr. Redpath
changed
his
vote
from "no" to "yes". These reported results reflect the
changed
vote
during the disputed time period, but the outcome of the
vote
is
not
impacted by the question of how to report this one
vote.
If they're footnoted, given that it doesn't impact the
result, I
won't
feel a need to raise a point of order about the
reported
results
and
ask the LNC to make a decision on how to report that
vote
change.
-Alicia
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
Lnc-business
<[1][3][6][8][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Voting has ENDED for the email ballot TITLE
Voting
"aye":
Bilyeu,
Hagan, Harlos, Hewitt, Longstreth, Lyons,
Mattson,
Merced,
Phillips,
Redpath, Smith Voting "nay": Bishop-Henchman,
Goldstein, Van
Horn
Express Abstention: Lark, Nekhaila With a
final
vote
tally
of
11-3-2,
the motion PASSES. Note: Sarwark did not
vote. You
can
keep
track
of
the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
[1][2][4][7][9][11]https://tinyur
l.com/lncvoting
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William
Redpath
via
Lnc-business
<[2][3][5][8][10][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
wrote:
I will change my vote on an LNC At-Large
voting
audit
to
Yes.
Bill
Redpath
On 2018-07-19 02:11, Alicia Mattson via
Lnc-business
wrote:
I vote yes.
-Alicia
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Caryn
Ann
Harlos
via
Lnc-business
<[1][3][4][6][9][11][13]lnc-busine
ss at hq.lp.org>
wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes
are
due
to the
LNC-Business
list by July 19, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
Pacific
time.
Co-Sponsors:
Bowden,
Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson
Motion: Move that the LNC would have an
audit
of
the At
Large
ballots
done by two independent auditors
appointed
by
the
Chair, ie
someone not
in the race. You can keep track of the
Secretary's
manual
tally
of
votes here:
[1][2][4][5][7][10][12][14]https://tinyurl.co
m/lncvoting
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian
National
Committee
Secretary
- [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or
Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation
Committee -
LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of
Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1.
[3][5][6][8][11][13][15]https://tinyur
[16]l.co
m/lncvoting
2. mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
org
References
1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-busine
[17]ss at hq.lp.org
2. [7][8][10][13][15][18]https://tiny
url.
com/lncvoting
3. [8][9][11][14][16][19]https://tiny
url.
com/lncvoting
4. mailto:[9]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National
Committee
Secretary
- [10]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or
Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -
LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [20]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. https://tinyurl.co/
15. https://tinyur/
16. http://l.co/
17. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
18. https://tinyurl/
19. https://tinyurl/
20. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list