[Lnc-business] Hybrid Convention idea

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Phillips.  You slandered me.  I am not going to labor that point here
on this list.  If you want to repair that, you know how to reach me without
bothering the rest of the LNC.  There are others on the LNC who have the
same position as I do.  I don't how you live with yourself surrounded by
such murderers.  I think you need to step back and check your rhetoric and
repair some friendship damage you just did.  Off list.  Your choice.  But I
can tell you, that I don't think I have been this angry with anyone for
anything they have ever said to me in a very very long time.

With that, I will say no more here. Either this relationship is important
to you or not.  The ball is in your court.

*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 6:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

> It was just pointed out to me there may be a misunderstanding here that is
> at least partially my fault. So let me clarify.
>
> I am NOT speaking in favor of this particular proposal.
>
> I AM speaking in favor of SOME proposal that allows delegates to vote
> remotely during this years convention.
>
> That is the important bit to me.  The details of how that is accomplished
> are 100% negotiable.  That is what I want support on.  Agreeing that that
> is the end we want.  From talking with others that is the impression I got
> from them as well.
>
> I think I showed that when I quickly bowed to the bylaws objection and
> moved to a different answer with not only no objection, but a thank you for
> pointing it out.
>
> I have said it before, if we agree on the goal, but you don't like the
> solution, lets come up with a different solution. Propose alternatives or
> amendments. As you yourself pointed out in our meeting on Saturday Caryn
> Ann.
>
> If we agree on the goal, just had a misunderstanding on what I meant about
> the means, then I offer a heartfelt apology for not being more clear and my
> reaction, and I will do so on every platform.  I assumed my many previous
> statements to that affect would have made it clear, and we all know what
> happens when we assume.
>
> However, if we truly don't agree on that goal, then I am prepared to die
> on that hill.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 4, 2020 5:55 PM, Phillip Anderson <phillip.anderson at lp.org> wrote:
>
> #I'mWithJohn
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:49 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Ok Mrs Harlos. Since you seem to want to make this difficult I will be
> exceedingly clear.
>
> I have planned since the beginning of this crisis to stand up and make a
> motion at the beginning of business to make a modification to the bylaws
> allowing our delegates to vote remotely if there was no other way to
> accomplish it.
>
> I have said that publicly more than once.
>
> Obviously Elizabeth Van Horn feels strongly as well. As does JBH, and some
> others. Since you ask who we is, there is a we to start I am hoping.
>
> You objected on bylaws grounds.  I did not disagree, I simply presented a
> solution that falls well within your cherished bylaws.  In a way that
> usurped no power, and clearly allowed the delegates present to debate,
> vote, and decide themselves.
>
>   I was very obviously asking for support from other members of this body
> in allowing the delegates to vote on whether or not to disenfranchise our
> duly selected delegates due to circumstances beyond their control.
>
> You say will not support this, that you will argue against it, that is
> your choice.  I know that every single delegate in region 6 will be
> interested to know that, as I am sure most of the rest of the country.
> They will be most interested to know that you insist they put their lives
> at risk to participate in the process.
>
> I still ask the other members of this board to stand in support of this
> when the time comes.  I was hoping that we could be united on at least
> supporting our delegates' voices being heard.  If not that is very
> disappointing.
>
> Regardless, I will be standing waiting to make this motion when the gavel
> falls, unless a better spokesperson steps up.  I will be there if I am the
> only one, and I will plead for their votes to be counted.  I hope I am not
> alone.
>
> And if it doesn't happen, and the delegates say to hell with them and
> their voices, then that will tell me all I need to know about the direction
> this party has gone, and I will walk out the door with my head held high
> knowing I fought for my people and say to hell with this party that will no
> longer be the party of caring that it claims to be.  I will also probably
> be cursing and letting the birds fly, but by then I won't care.
>
> Again I am hoping I do not stand alone at that mic fellow Libertarians and
> board members, but I will stand.
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 4, 2020 5:01 PM, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
>
> In addition the only action that asks of the actual LNC is to ask the COC
> to allow some extra time at the beginning.
>
> Though I would think a unified effort to allow for our delegates to have
> their voice would be nice, so us making the motion as a body would be a
> good thing, it is of course not required.
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 4, 2020 4:55 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.
> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>