[Lnc-business] Hybrid Convention idea

Mon May 4 17:58:34 EDT 2020

Who is the "we" you want to announce.  It cannot be the LNC. If you as a
delegate want to band with other delegates to do so, feel free, but that
has nothing to do with the LNC.

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:55 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

> I was unaware that the agenda was only set by bylaws. That is a valid
> concern. Thank you for pointing it out Caryn Ann.
>
> There is an easy way around that however.  We announce that it is our
> intention to make a motion at the start of business to suspend the rules to
> bring this subject forward for immediate debate. Then the delegates can
> decide.  Pretty sure they will be in favor, and those not will have their
> opportunity to debate.
>
> While the agenda may be set, amount of time I am pretty sure is not, as I
> sat in and listened to the COC discuss time allotments, including cutting
> out a VP debate.  So we simply announce that we plan to do so, and ask the
> COC to make a time allowance in the schedule.
>
> If we have managed to make this other compromise there will be a lot of
> extra time in the schedule anyway.
>
> Any other issues?  As you can see, I am more than willing to work within
> the bylaws to see this matter addressed.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 4, 2020 3:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Plus John, the LNC has zero authority to modify the agenda. The agenda is
> in our standing convention rules and only the delegates in convention can
> modify that.  There is not a thing we can do about that.  You can hope
> delegates will do that, but there is no guarantee, and since that is not in
> the agenda, we cannot instruct the CoC to prepare for that lest we be seen
> as salting the soup.
>
> A majority (or close to) of LNC members have agreed on a compromise.  A
> compromise means everyone gives up something.  If there is no willingness
> to do so, then this exercise is futile.  And that's okay if that is what
> people want.  But without a willingness to compromise, I will not support
> any revisiting of the decision we made.  It was made, let move forward.
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:54 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> I won't support that.    If this is what we are going to pushing, I will
> go back to my family life and stick to my original position.
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:43 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Agreed Elizabeth. Tho i believe the easiest way to make that happen is
> making it first thing on the convention agenda.  I believe bylaws is
> working on the language already, and most of us agree on the necessity.
>
> Perhaps that is something we could do on Saturday? Motion to "make
> consideration of bylaws amendment to allow remote participation first item
> on the agenda"?
>
> A few of us were already discussing it, but since you brought it up here
> ...
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 4, 2020 2:27 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I will not support without a hybrid option.  If a POTUS/VP nomination
> can be done electronically/remotely.  Then so can the other convention
> business.
>
> This isn't about "everyone gets something they want".  It's about not
> asking people to risk their health or that of family.
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>
> On 2020-05-04 13:25, dustin.nanna--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > I'm actually not sure I'd be willing to support a postponement that
> doesn't also allow remote participation but I could be swayed if that's
> what the delegation wants.
> >
> > On May 4, 2020 1:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim and Dustin, there is a majority of LNC members now who are willing
> to
> >> sign on to a different compromise.  An all online P/VP election very
> soon
> >> and an in person convention for everything else in July/august with no
> >> hybrid option.  This way everyone gets something of what they want.  I
> am
> >> willing to sign off on that.
> >>
> >> I hope you will too Tim.
> >>
> >> *In Liberty,*
> >>
> >> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> >> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> faux
> >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:51 AM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> According to Rule 3 of the Convention Special Rules of Order,
> delegates
> >>> can be polled individually if a state's vote report is challenged, and
> >>> they must sign computer readable ballots if they're used. There's no
> >>> requirement for a secret ballot.
> >>>
> >>> I listened in on the Bylaws Committee meeting yesterday. They worked
> on
> >>> an amendment that would allow a hybrid convention. I'd fully support
> >>> what they had at the end of their meeting, and it's very similar to
> your
> >>> idea. Of course, It would need to be passed by the in-person attendees
> >>> to become in effect.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Tim Hagan
> >>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
> >>>
> >>> On 2020-05-04 09:34, dustin.nanna--- via Lnc-business wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Attached is a rough idea that I had that might satisfy both sides of
> the
> >>> issue. It was relatively popular with Ohio folks
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to get your guys' thoughts on a hybrid convention. Here's how
> it
> >>> would work roughly:
> >>>>
> >>>> As many delegates as possible/want to would meet at a time and place
> >>> best suited and ASAP. They would then authorize emergency bylaws
> allowing
> >>> remote voting for those with health concerns, compromised family, etc.
> Each
> >>> delegation chair would make the decision on who would meet the
> criteria and
> >>> the delegation chair would need to be on site at the physical portion
> of
> >>> convention. Those voting remote could only vote on things that aren't
> >>> voice. (Such as President, VC, LNC officers and at large, and JC) and
> would
> >>> do so by email ballot (my only concern here is no secret ballot). The
> state
> >>> chairs would then tabulate the combined votes and send them to the on
> site
> >>> secretary as usual.
> >>>
>
>
>
>