[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Fri May 15 13:34:18 EDT 2020
Edit for typo:
You wrote: "...so I'll withhold judgement on that part until they
actually are if you don't mind."
--What a weird thing to write. I WASN'T asking you to think anything.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-15 13:32, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
> John,
>
> You wrote: "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, ..."
>
> --I'm aware.
>
> You wrote: "...so I'll withhold judgement on that part until they
> actually are if you don't mind."
>
> --What a weird thing to write. I was asking you to think anything.
>
> You wrote: "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."
>
> ---I didn't mention what we had before, I referenced what I'd heard
> Nick
> was likely to do.
>
> You wrote: "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."
>
> ---Noted. That it's a BIG difference in your mind.
>
> You wrote: "So I will have to disagree with you, this is significant
> for many reasons."
>
> ---It's only significant if one thinks it is. Like everything in life.
>
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
> On 2020-05-15 09:57, john.phillips at 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
>>>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list