[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

[Alicia Mattson]

John,

I don't think I understand a distinction you are trying to make.

RONR p. 305:
"By means of the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously
Adopted - which are two forms of one incidental main motion governed by
identical rules - the assembly can change an action previously taken or
ordered."

They're essentially the same motion.  It's just a matter of the degree to
which the prior motion is changed, partially or wholly.  I'm proposing an
amendment which wholly replaces it with something else.  To the extent that
others wish some other interim method that results in naming a presidential
ticket, it's not incompatible with the rescind motion underway.  It still
would need to rescind the motion for what is being implemented as a mass
Zoom meeting, and it still would need a plan for the convention to
proceed.  The two ideas don't conflict with each other, do they?  If action
is to be taken to undo the mass Zoom meeting at all, it has to be now.

-Alicia


On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:00 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> First, doing this in a separate thread because the threads on the original
> motions are already muddied and confused.
>
> 1. Mrs Harlos and Ms Mattson.  I appreciate that you think rescind is the
> correct procedure.  I am sorry that is not enough for myself or my states,
> we need to know WHY.  Amending the motion previously adopted seems a much
> simpler procedure and less risky of losing the progress we have made.  To
> support rescinding I will need a clear explanation of WHY.  And not just
> why we should, but why we HAVE to.  Those are 2 distinct things.  There are
> many cases where just a little flexibility can greatly ease the journey and
> get us where we need to be.
>         My state chairs are currently overwhelmingly in favor of not
> rescinding.  They do not trust us to not screw it up worse, and honestly
> who can blame them.  I do not, heck I agree with them.
>
>
> 2.  I have said before I think the option with 10.14 or whatever the
> number is better, and was indeed one I floated long ago, as did others.  If
> it is possible to push that one as an amendment I will consider it and take
> it to them.
>
> 3.  As I understand it the latest issue is the current solution's
> inability to seat all 1046 delegates - in addition to the other issues that
> already existed.  I find this issue compelling.  Rather than scrap the
> whole motion tho, could we not make direction to solve that problem? I know
> the state chairs group has ideas.
>      I understand that trust is low, mine is about gone, so I understand
> that trusting that would happen is questionable. So present a viable
> alternative.
>
> In conclusion, sell me on it.  The rescind is a very scary option, and I
> am not sold on it.  I think the proposed change could help, and also allows
> us to use other means more easily in order to allow full participation in
> the potus/vp selection process, but I do not know that I can in good
> conscience support taking us all the way back to square one at this point.
>
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>