[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-12: INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF AT-LARGE VOTE RESULTS
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Jul 25 08:29:55 EDT 2018
Skimmed and skipped.
Not going to that dance Alicia. Continue solo if you wish.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>
--
--
*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 --------------
Skimmed and skipped.
Not going to that dance Alicia. Continue solo if you wish.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
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][2]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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]https://tinyur
[13]l.com/lncvoting
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM, William
Redpath
via
Lnc-business
<[2][3][5][8][10][12][14]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
[15]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][16]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][17]https://tinyur
[16][18]l.co
m/lncvoting
2.
mailto:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.
org
References
1. mailto:[6][7][9][12][14]lnc-
busine
[17][19]ss at hq.lp.org
2.
[7][8][10][13][15][18][20]https://tiny
url.
com/lncvoting
3.
[8][9][11][14][16][19][21]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:[22]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[25]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[28]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:[30]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:[31]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. [32]https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
12. mailto:[33]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:[34]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. [35]https://tinyurl.co/
15. [36]https://tinyur/
16. [37]http://l.co/
17. mailto:[38]ss at hq.lp.org
18. [39]https://tinyurl/
19. [40]https://tinyurl/
20. mailto:[41]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [42]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:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
12. https://tinyur/
13. http://l.com/lncvoting
14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
16. https://tinyurl.co/
17. https://tinyur/
18. http://l.co/
19. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
20. https://tiny/
21. https://tiny/
22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
25. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
31. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
32. https://tinyurl.com/lncvoting
33. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
34. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. https://tinyurl.co/
36. https://tinyur/
37. http://l.co/
38. mailto:ss at hq.lp.org
39. https://tinyurl/
40. https://tinyurl/
41. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
42. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list