[Lnc-business] Seeking cosponsors - convention motion

Thu May 14 00:35:05 EDT 2020

I will co-sponsor.  I want to give my reasons.  The chair is subverting the
will of the LNC, and the LNC needs to take back its rightful control of its
own decisions.  I do not know if I am going to vote for it.  But it needs
to be heard.

If a concurrent motion is offered to have an acceptable compromise, I will
definitely vote for this.  But without such I do not know my answer.  But I
will co-sponsor as a sign of my objection to the usurping of the authority
of the LNC by one person.

*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 Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:28 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Mr. Phillips we can concurrently offer the Adams compromise that would be
> a ballot that expires concurrently with this one or one day later.
>
> *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 Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:28 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> EVH, I think your point has merit.  If this motion passes, I
>> would re-offer the Erin Adams compromise motion or something very similar
>> unless someone convinces me that would be unwise.
>>
>> From what I hear from what happened tonight - not the things that will be
>> fixed with practices - but with the inherent flaws that make this NOT a
>> deliberative process and our chair's comments about points of order and
>> parliamentary inquiry, I do not believe we can pull this off and protect
>> rights.  If that is the route the LNC decides to take, I will respect it
>> and do my best, but the best at impossible is still impossible.
>>
>> But we did commit to a compromise.  But our compromise where our chair
>> has vowed to skuttle it is no compromise.  We need one that cannot be
>> skuttled by the chair.  Ms. Adams' compromise is far superior.  After
>> getting some advise, I may be seeking co-sponsors for a concurrent ballot
>> with this one to expire after it that would adopt the Adams motion.
>>
>> *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 Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:23 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Email ballots do not require four co-sponsors from the winning side.
>>> The sponsors are like seconds.   I have not decided if I am going to
>>> support this motion, but I am not going to let it get squashed by
>>> procedure.  But you are incorrect on the point of order to begin with.  We
>>> are not in the same session. That requirement for the winning side is only
>>> in the same session.  A rescind does not require someone on the winning
>>> side.  If you need the RONR pages, I can provide them.
>>>
>>> *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 Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:48 PM justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business <
>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I object to this motion.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of the compromise we came to was to accomodate ballot
>>>> access deadlines and the recognition that a July date made doing so
>>>> impossible or impractical. Ignoring those concerns is irresponsible and
>>>> damaging to the Party. Furthermore, we waited too long to make a decision
>>>> in the first place, this is on us. We all knew well before last weekend
>>>> that Memorial Day in Texas wasn't going to fly in the current climate, we
>>>> have noone but ourselves to blame for letting things get to this point with
>>>> wishful thinking. Its time to stop acting childish, suck it up, and make
>>>> the best of the situation we're in.
>>>>
>>>> On parliamentary grounds, a motion to reconsider is required to be made
>>>> by a member of the prevailing side, I would argue that an email ballot
>>>> requires 4 valid cosponsors, and thus would require 4 members from the
>>>> prevailing side to cosponsor in order to be a valid motion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Justin O'Donnell
>>>> LNC Region 8 Representative
>>>>
>>>> On May 13, 2020 11:04 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I ask for email ballot co-sponsors for the following motion to:
>>>>
>>>> Rescind in its entirety the motion adopted during the May 9, 2020 LNC
>>>> meeting, which called for a convention to begin on May 22, 2020 with
>>>> business conducted online.  Instead, in accordance with Bylaw Article
>>>> 10.1,
>>>> the LNC calls an in-person convention to occur during the dates of July
>>>> 8-12, 2020 at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando, Florida.
>>>>
>>>> I know that I was on the losing side of a 13-4 motion on Saturday,
>>>> however
>>>> after tonight's train-wreck and the information I learned during it, I
>>>> believe that some LNC members from the other side are ready to change
>>>> course.  If I did not believe that to be the case, I would not offer
>>>> this
>>>> motion.  To preserve options for the LNC, given the 7-day voting period
>>>> for
>>>> an email ballot, I want to start this motion now so that it can
>>>> complete by
>>>> next Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>> I will have a LOT to say about this soon, as will others, but my first
>>>> focus is getting the co-sponsors.  Then we can debate.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <
>>>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>
>>>> Virus-free.
>>>> www.avg.com
>>>> <
>>>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>
>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>