[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