[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

Fri May 15 09:53:01 EDT 2020

The urging is polite.  But it is clear they want to have more say and
control in the process.

It’s still not a true deliberative assembly but nothing online is.

I have not seen a fully signed agreement either.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I'll add that at least one chair from Region 3 wasn't able to make that
> Chair's meeting, maybe others too.  I need to check this morning. The
> copy of the resolution that I saw, didn't have names attached.  I'm
> interested in how many state chairs did agree to that resolution.
> Although, the resolution itself doesn't say anything controversial, but
> 'urges' the LNC, Chair, and ED to "modify" procedures, etc.
>
> The copy I read doesn't show who, or how many, chairs signed on.
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>
>
>
>
> On 2020-05-15 08:54, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
> > John, before the some of the state chairs ever did a meeting last
> > night,
> > I heard through the grapevine things the Chair was going to do to
> > improve the Zoom experience.
> >
> > Last night after the chair resolution came out, it was posted in a
> > group, where I read it.  It has a lot of words.  But, basically says
> > the
> > type of things the Chair was probably already going to do.
> >
> > So, the only concrete difference I see after that chair meeting last
> > night is NV broke away Region 4 and joined Region 1.
> >
> > ---
> > Elizabeth Van Horn
> > LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> >
> > 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
> >>>>
>
-- 

*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. *