[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

John, for someone who admits online communication isn't where someone
can read intent, you sure didn't hesitate to suggest someone else's
intent.  I'm not being dismissive of the state chairs.  I also am aware
of the input a state chair in my region had in the writing.  I think he
was one of the main writers of that resolution

Do Not start suggesting intent that I didn't state.  You don't get to
decide my intent. 

---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)

On 2020-05-15 15:20, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:

> Except your intent was obviously to make people think something or else there was no reason to respond.  
> 
> I m glad you are aware that these things had been requested before to the point that the several chairs felt the need to get together and do something as well. It is something we should all be aware of. Thank you for confirming. 
> 
> As for the rest, maybe the dismissive tone on your part that invited those responses was unintentional?  I am very willing to accept that and move on.  As I am in this one.  Undertones via email often come across different from one person to another.   
> 
> At least I sincerely hope your intent was not to be so dismissive of 20+ state chairs all getting together and agreeing on something to help resolve the many complaints on all sides of the issue.  One authored by a state chair in your region I believe. 
> 
> That level of cooperation and willingness to compromise IS a big deal in this day and I applaud them for it. 
> 
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973 
> 
> On May 15, 2020 12:32 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> 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 
>>