[Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 200513-1 MOTION TO RESCIND MAY 9 MOTION DESCRIBED BELOW

Thu May 14 02:46:41 EDT 2020

That comment was not to ms Mattson.  She’s dealing with what matters.

Rights and abuses of the chair.

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:45 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Very serious concerns.
>
> I am going to vote and work.  That’s it.
>
> I’m not going to respond to emotional yells.  Everyone vote your
> conscience.
>
> My priority is fundamental rights.
>
> I am not going to deviate from that for appearances.
>
> I am not going to deviate from that for anything.
>
> I am ignoring the rest.
>
> I am ignoring social media.
>
> It is our job to ensure rights are not violated.
>
> Timing of motions, who’s getting elected or re elected or who is upset are
> not my concern.
>
> The votes will go as they may.  And I will do my job.
>
> But I will not violate member rights.  Period.
>
> We’ve let the chair get away with murder.
>
> Some of us wrote a letter in October.  It was largely ignored.
>
> I’m not going to let member rights be violated.  If you are not talking
> about rights save your breath with me.
>
> I’ve let myself get distracted from that.
>
> No more.
>
> If you’re not dealing with rights leave me out of it.
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:28 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Our platform demands that the constitution not be suspended in times of
>> war, and the Platform Committee is proposing to add other conditions to
>> that.  The LNC is currently voting on a motion to say that emergencies are
>> not a legitimate reason to violate rights.  How can the LNC, then,
>> facilitate what is clearly going to be a bulldozing of delegate rights
>> with
>> this online convention plan?
>>
>> There were many delegates who were unable to attend tonight's online
>> event,
>> so I need to share some information that was given.
>>
>> First recall that Zoom has a meeting mode, and it has a webinar mode.  In
>> meeting mode, participants can see who else is present, can see whose
>> hands
>> are raised, and NORMALLY have mic/video rights, as it is designed for a
>> more deliberative process.  In webinar mode, it's designed to be one-way
>> information, presenter gives info and the rest are passive observers, and
>> it is not designed for a deliberative process for group decisions.  We
>> can't tell who else is or is not present.  We can't see whose hands are
>> raised or whether the chair is recognizing people in the order in which
>> hands were raised.  We are locked in isolation cages and can only speak
>> when someone else gives us permission.
>>
>> Tonight it was explained that in meeting mode, Zoom has an absolute
>> maximum
>> capacity of 1000 participants.  We have 1046 delegates, so the platform
>> which has been chosen is not capable of hosting all of our delegates.
>> This
>> is a serious matter when we're talking about duly elected delegates being
>> prevented from attending the meeting because they're one of the last 46 to
>> arrive.
>>
>> The chair indicated we would use meeting mode for the Friday night
>> credentialing and agenda process, but then when it came time for
>> elections,
>> he would put us into webinar mode because it can handle up to 3000
>> participants.
>>
>> Remember webinar mode from the first test run?  Remember all my comments
>> about how that violates the fundamental requirements for simultaneous
>> aural
>> communication among all participants, noted on page ONE of RONR?  I
>> thought
>> we were past that possibility when the second test run was put into
>> meeting
>> mode, and we were allowed to control our own mics.
>>
>> Webinar mode means you have no means of raising a point of order or other
>> privileged motion in a timely manner.  This is also a very serious
>> fundamental rights issue.  If our rules are violated, and we can't
>> immediately act to alert the assembly to the problem and have it
>> corrected,
>> it's a huge problem.  Some mistake made impacting a candidate's status?
>> Election results are incorrect?  Delegates who are for some reason unable
>> to enter the meeting to exercise their rights to vote?  Can't open your
>> mic
>> to say anything.
>>
>> For tonight's trial we were actually in meeting mode, but the account
>> admins had chosen to take away our microphone controls even in meeting
>> mode!!
>>
>> Under these conditions, delegate rights are subject to the whims of a
>> chair
>> who has, more and more lately, demonstrated that he doesn't give a flip
>> about the rights of members to speak in meetings.  I am not going to
>> surrender my rights as a member to such a chair.
>>
>> Tonight we practiced with debate over the silly subject of whether hot
>> dogs
>> are sandwiches.  How did that go?  The motions and debate were funny,
>> however there were numerous procedural violations.  The Chair refused to
>> designate any particular means by which a delegate could raise a point of
>> order.  He sorta suggested maybe we could flash icons or something but
>> then
>> refused to pay attention to such signals.
>>
>> There were various causes for points of order:  debate not germane to the
>> motion, the motions being misstated as completely different things than
>> were moved, the polls being put up for voting also containing the wrong
>> motion, too many amendments pending at a time, etc.  These are all things
>> that need someone to say something immediately, but we couldn't.
>>
>> We were left trying all sorts of novel things to get attention:  flash
>> various icons repeatedly, physically wave our hands on our video, hold up
>> notes to our cameras.  Nothing worked.  All we could do was raise our
>> hands
>> to get in line to speak with non-privileged priority...which took 20
>> minutes.  Oh, and if in the meantime we tried flashing
>> yes/no/coffee/fast/slow icons, Zoom put our hand down and took us out of
>> the waiting line to speak.  At one point when I had a hand up for a point
>> of order, a faceless admin pulled me out of the main hall and put me into
>> the credentialing room, which also lost my place in the speaking queue.
>>
>> When several people eventually got to speak after waiting forever to raise
>> points of order the chair was very dismissive about the inability to
>> exercise our rights to raise privileged motions.  He clearly didn't care
>> and wasn't going to see that any mechanism was implemented.  Instead we
>> were treated to the chair whining that:
>> -privileged motions annoy him
>> -privileged motions are "a giant pain in the ass"
>> -he doesn't know a right way to get a privileged motion to bubble up
>> -it's tricky, and I don't have an answer
>> -and maybe if someone put up the coffee cup icon he could somehow send the
>> parliamentarian to "deal with the individual."
>>
>> It was callous disregard for delegate rights to call attention to
>> potentially serious problems, and it was clear he doesn't WANT to allow us
>> to do that.
>>
>> I'm also going to say it out loud that by the end of it, the chair was
>> drunk and slurring words.
>>
>> Is this how this board is going to allow the selection of our Presidential
>> and Vice-Presidential nominees to proceed?  With a chair hostile to
>> delegate rights just gaveling through?  We owe better to our members.
>>
>> All of this is on top of the MANY, MANY complaints we are getting about
>> delegates not having received the notices/links, not being able to enter
>> the room, etc.  All the other execution problems are also serious, but to
>> me are secondary to the reality that the chair intends to bulldoze all of
>> us.
>>
>> The chair keeps saying that we will try to follow our existing rules as
>> closely as possible.  In this meeting, he declared that election voting
>> will just be each delegation figuring out for themselves how to vote, and
>> they can do it any way they want, and then these 51 sets of results get
>> submitted.  (By the way, the Secretary has been told that these votes will
>> first go through staff and not even be submitted directly to her...there
>> should NOT be a middle-man!!)  In the meeting I pointed out that our
>> Convention Rule 10 requires these delegation votes to be by written
>> ballot,
>> and the individual ballots submitted for tellers to double-check the
>> tallies.  I asked how this plan is compliant with our rules.  I explained
>> the reason this rule exists is that we have discovered MANY, MANY errors
>> in
>> delegation tallies, and we need double-checking to minimize the chances of
>> announcing incorrect election results.  The chair was dismissive, oh well,
>> we'll do our best...
>>
>> It is important that delegate votes be counted properly, and these are not
>> issues that we can afford to take lightly.
>>
>> I'm not unsympathetic to the couple of states with early deadlines, but we
>> just need to use lawyers and fight for judicial relief in those states.
>> Why is that not already being done anyway?
>>
>> -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
>> >
>> <#m_-8980570466629482085_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:36 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> > We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> >
>> > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 20 2020 at 11:59:59 pm
>> > Pacific time.
>> >
>> > Co-Sponsors:  Bilyeu, Harlos, Hewitt, Mattson, Smith
>> >
>> > =============================================
>> >
>> >
>> > Motion: 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.
>> >
>> > =============================================
>> >
>> > THRESHOLD REQUIRED:
>> >
>> >
>> > You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here:
>> > https://tinyurl.com/ballot200513-1.  Votes are noted with a link to the
>> > actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the
>> manual
>> > tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please notify me of any discrepancies.
>> >
>> > *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *
>> >
>>
>> <
>> 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>
>>
> --
>
> *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. *
>
> --

*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. *