[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I was going to say all that Mr Phillips.  You are 100% correct.


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:57 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Elizabeth,
> several of those things were discussed and suggested by multiple people
> weeks ago, long before testing began, and had not been implemented by the
> chair yet, so I'll withhold judgement on that part until they actually are
> if you don't mind.
>
> Also included in the resolution is agreement to NOT push to modify the
> agenda and to honor the compromise, as well as urge their delegates to
> ratify.  Neither of which we had before.
>
> Lastly my understanding is that some of the states that were having the
> biggest objection to the current path are signatories to this resolution,
> which makes a BIG difference in my mind.
>
> So I will have to disagree with you, this is significant for many reasons.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 15, 2020 7:54 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2020 7:54 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2020 7:54 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> 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. *