[Lnc-business] Thoughts on Alternatives to Mr Bishop-Henchman's proposal

[Phillip Anderson]

Thank you John Phillips.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:56 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Thoughts on alternatives to Mr Bishop-Henchman's motion.
>
> Let me start with pointing out a couple things I have been told and
> observed.
>
> First is that I missed the earlier meeting with the COC due to other
> commitments, but in conversations since I am told that the COC gave basic
> outlines of plans in that meeting.  If that is correct, at this point we
> cannot do much more than that as far as actual solid plan details.
>
> Secondly, Mr Dehn's proposal is pretty much identical to how we ran the
> voting in the Affiliate Support Committee's contest, as suggested by Mr
> Fishman.  I say this not to discredit Mr Dehn's work, but to point out we
> already have proof of concept on much of his plan.
>
> So keeping those things in mind I have a few thoughts.
>
> 1st is we do not really need a plan for option A of just having the
> convention, as that is already in place.
>
>   Not far behind that is if we cancel it entirely and have the LNC make
> selections.  Some polling options would be in order, but we could knock
> those plans out easily and be done quickly.  So we can leave those out of
> his proposal.
>
> That narrows the field a bit.  An alternative venue or delay also are more
> of an "are they possible" rather than a ton of planning - yes I realize
> that is a bit of an understatement, but that in many ways is more adapting
> existing plans rather than coming up with entirely new ones.  That narrows
> the field further. - Personal opinion on these tho is that they may
> actually be the least doable, since if Austin is shutdown still it is
> likely most alternatives will be as well, and we know delays may cost us
> ballot access in some states.
>
> Now we could then say "Let's pick the 2 or 3 remaining most likely and
> start some plans", that is an option.  However, before we get that far,
> most of those have the same 2 basic issues, Bylaws and Technology.  While
> there may be some differences in implementing them, broadly they are
> similar.
>
> Luckily, we already have 2 groups that deal with those things.  So I
> suggest rather than trying to overburden our already working like crazy
> C.O.C. we ask these groups. Ask Bylaws to put together a couple broad
> proposals that address changes that would be needed to proceed and present
> them in a few weeks.  Ask our IT committee or voting process committee (or
> both) to look into technology solutions that may be required to implement
> remote voting, also to present in a few weeks. I have some thoughts on
> that, but not germane here, but as I said earlier Mr Dehn's suggestion has
> already been successfully implemented once, other ways should be
> investigated as well.
>
> Ms Desisto and her team can continue refining plans in case we do need to
> offer refunds.
>
> These types of things can be broadly painted in and kept fluid while
> reducing our response time later.
>
> Then we go ahead and have a meeting on the 20th (or other date in that
> timeframe).  We get some reports back. We narrow options more, maybe divvy
> up some more research and planning , maybe not.  We set a firm date for a
> final decision and schedule that meeting.
>
> Voila, we get some progress, address some of the concerns of our members,
> reduce response time later, and do not crush our C.O.C. more than they
> already are.
>
> I am actually operating under the assumption some if not all of this is
> already being done, so this would not even really add more work to anyone,
> just formalize it publicly and put a time frame on it, which addresses the
> 2 biggest concerns I get from members.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>