[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

[Sam Goldstein]

John, 

Can you forward the state chairs' resolution please?  I've not seen it. 

Thanks,

---
Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell 

On 2020-05-15 08:34, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:

> The distinction is simple.  Rescinding takes us back to square one and lots of other motions can be offered and argued and if we cannot agree on a follow up solution leaves us with nothing. 
> 
> Amending shows a direction that is intended, and if it fails we still have something, even as imperfect as it is. 
> 
> So what you are telling me is that according to RONR there is functionally no difference in rescinding vs amending (like vote counts etc),  but as I point out above the processes could end in very different results that could cause a lot of problems if we rescind. 
> 
> Thank you for answering the question.  Given that I will be unable to support rescinding, tho I will be happy to support amending, and was working on something to that affect. 
> 
> However I believe the resolution that came out of the state chairs group last night will be our best option so paused working on it to see what they came up with.  Since it is very similar to a solution I offered previously, no surprise I like it, but they improved it 
> 
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973 
> 
> On May 15, 2020 2:26 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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 
>>>