<div dir='auto'>The COC is working on those things.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Erin Adams Region 7 alt.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 30, 2020 12:25 AM, Phillip Anderson via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Thank you John Phillips.
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:56 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
<br>
lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> Thoughts on alternatives to Mr Bishop-Henchman's motion.
<br>
>
<br>
> Let me start with pointing out a couple things I have been told and
<br>
> observed.
<br>
>
<br>
> First is that I missed the earlier meeting with the COC due to other
<br>
> commitments, but in conversations since I am told that the COC gave basic
<br>
> outlines of plans in that meeting. If that is correct, at this point we
<br>
> cannot do much more than that as far as actual solid plan details.
<br>
>
<br>
> Secondly, Mr Dehn's proposal is pretty much identical to how we ran the
<br>
> voting in the Affiliate Support Committee's contest, as suggested by Mr
<br>
> Fishman. I say this not to discredit Mr Dehn's work, but to point out we
<br>
> already have proof of concept on much of his plan.
<br>
>
<br>
> So keeping those things in mind I have a few thoughts.
<br>
>
<br>
> 1st is we do not really need a plan for option A of just having the
<br>
> convention, as that is already in place.
<br>
>
<br>
> Not far behind that is if we cancel it entirely and have the LNC make
<br>
> selections. Some polling options would be in order, but we could knock
<br>
> those plans out easily and be done quickly. So we can leave those out of
<br>
> his proposal.
<br>
>
<br>
> That narrows the field a bit. An alternative venue or delay also are more
<br>
> of an "are they possible" rather than a ton of planning - yes I realize
<br>
> that is a bit of an understatement, but that in many ways is more adapting
<br>
> existing plans rather than coming up with entirely new ones. That narrows
<br>
> the field further. - Personal opinion on these tho is that they may
<br>
> actually be the least doable, since if Austin is shutdown still it is
<br>
> likely most alternatives will be as well, and we know delays may cost us
<br>
> ballot access in some states.
<br>
>
<br>
> Now we could then say "Let's pick the 2 or 3 remaining most likely and
<br>
> start some plans", that is an option. However, before we get that far,
<br>
> most of those have the same 2 basic issues, Bylaws and Technology. While
<br>
> there may be some differences in implementing them, broadly they are
<br>
> similar.
<br>
>
<br>
> Luckily, we already have 2 groups that deal with those things. So I
<br>
> suggest rather than trying to overburden our already working like crazy
<br>
> C.O.C. we ask these groups. Ask Bylaws to put together a couple broad
<br>
> proposals that address changes that would be needed to proceed and present
<br>
> them in a few weeks. Ask our IT committee or voting process committee (or
<br>
> both) to look into technology solutions that may be required to implement
<br>
> remote voting, also to present in a few weeks. I have some thoughts on
<br>
> that, but not germane here, but as I said earlier Mr Dehn's suggestion has
<br>
> already been successfully implemented once, other ways should be
<br>
> investigated as well.
<br>
>
<br>
> Ms Desisto and her team can continue refining plans in case we do need to
<br>
> offer refunds.
<br>
>
<br>
> These types of things can be broadly painted in and kept fluid while
<br>
> reducing our response time later.
<br>
>
<br>
> Then we go ahead and have a meeting on the 20th (or other date in that
<br>
> timeframe). We get some reports back. We narrow options more, maybe divvy
<br>
> up some more research and planning , maybe not. We set a firm date for a
<br>
> final decision and schedule that meeting.
<br>
>
<br>
> Voila, we get some progress, address some of the concerns of our members,
<br>
> reduce response time later, and do not crush our C.O.C. more than they
<br>
> already are.
<br>
>
<br>
> I am actually operating under the assumption some if not all of this is
<br>
> already being done, so this would not even really add more work to anyone,
<br>
> just formalize it publicly and put a time frame on it, which addresses the
<br>
> 2 biggest concerns I get from members.
<br>
>
<br>
> John Phillips
<br>
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br>
> Cell 217-412-5973
<br>
>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>