<div dir="ltr">Both, whichever gets the requisite number.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">"I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting. I also said<br>
in that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it<br>
needs a full hearing. Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos<br>
and from Mr. Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic<br>
into question. I still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have<br>
been convinced that consideration is due. I believe motions get<br>
clearer and better consideration when they are actually pending -<br>
there is a difference, psychologically, between speaking in general,<br>
and speaking on a precise motion. (On a side note, I agree with Ms.<br>
Harlos that this motion would be better if it specified the cause,<br>
although I do not think this is necessary.) Therefore, I will<br>
cosponsor."<br>
<br>
</span>Are you co-sponsoring the email ballot or joining in the call for an<br>
electronic meeting?<br>
<span class=""><br>
"However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask<br>
the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.<br>
According to RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in<br>
debate (but may vote against it), but the seconder may speak against<br>
it in debate. Our email ballots generally list everyone who wished to<br>
see the motion, the original maker and the cosponsors, as<br>
"cosponsors." That notwithstanding, it is my understanding that a<br>
cosponsor is in the position of a seconder and may speak in debate<br>
against the motion."<br>
<br>
</span>I agree with this interpretation that your co-sponsorship of a motion<br>
for an email ballot would not prevent you from speaking against the<br>
motion in the email ballot during debate.<br>
<br>
-Nick<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting. I also said in that<br>
> email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a full<br>
> hearing. Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr. Sharpe<br>
> which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question. I still<br>
> am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that<br>
> consideration is due. I believe motions get clearer and better<br>
> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,<br>
> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise<br>
> motion. (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be<br>
> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is<br>
> necessary.) Therefore, I will cosponsor.<br>
><br>
> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask the<br>
> Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect. According to<br>
> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate (but may vote<br>
> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate. Our email<br>
> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the original<br>
> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors." That notwithstanding, it is my<br>
> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder and may<br>
> speak in debate against the motion.<br>
><br>
> Joshua A. Katz<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn<br>
> <<a href="mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org">elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair<br>
>> under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>_<br>
>><br>
>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this<br>
>> motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in accord<br>
>> to make the motion to suspend Arvin. That percent was reached last night.<br>
>><br>
>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I<br>
>> didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".<br>
>><br>
>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members<br>
>> who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their<br>
>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.<br>
>><br>
>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice<br>
>> that I represent.<br>
>><br>
>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Elizabeth Van Horn<br>
>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)<br>
>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana<br>
>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee<br>
>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus<br>
>> <a href="http://www.lpcaucus.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lpcaucus.org/</a><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>