EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith ============================================= Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order. ============================================= THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair. You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet. Please notify me of any discrepancies. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote yes to sustain the ruling of the chair. I will repost here the explanation I gave to the membership. Years ago I learned of a situation about LNC over-reach regarding Oregon. The decision the LNC made was not done in bad faith. Many could agree that it was the right decision. That was never the point. The point was whether or not the LNC had the authority to make that decision in the first place - good decision or bad was irrelevant. They did not have that authority. I was appalled that they tried to do that so I ran for the LNC originally to protect Colorado and other region 1 states from that ever happening to them. Opposing LNC overreach is thus my primary motivation for being on the LNC to begin with. We have another situation that is similar in principle. No one is acting in bad faith. The thing attempting to be done is very arguably a good decision. But we do not have the authority to do so. We would be hypocrites of the highest order if we interpret our bylaws which DO specifically address a situation as allowing something not allowed in those specific instructions. That goes against Libertarian principles of governing and against parliamentary principles of member rights. It is what we condemn in the government every single day. No matter my emotions, I cannot act outside the bylaws, and I will not. I urge the delegates to amend the bylaws if this is a power that they wish the LNC to have. Be careful what you wish for. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. A method to put this power in the hands of the delegates (perhaps by petition of 10% of the prior delegates at the last convention similar to an appeal) is far preferable. I have heard an argument that our duty is to the many rather than the one. If that is true, Libertarianism is a fraud. You may disagree with my position, but it is held with conviction of my principles and in good faith. I respect the many many members that have written. But the ends do not justify the means. Yes, this needs to be fixed. It is not fixed by the LNC abusing its p ower. I am ashamed at what this had degenerated into. It is producing a lot of heat and very little light. This never should have been a public social media spectacle. One LNC member took it up on themselves to take this out of a confidential session. That was wrong. Other LNC members took advantage of that fact and are washing their hands of it pointing fingers at that first discloser. That is wrong. To be clear, discussing the situation publication is fine - disclosing the name of the private individual is wrong and is a violation of our duties. And our policy manual makes it clear that it is still wrong even if "he/she did it first." Several LNC members are in violation of this principle. With the exception of the issue in the paragraph above, there are no bad actions - and even in those bad actions - those were not done in malice but in good faith. One can be wrong in good faith. The LNC members that disagree with me are doing so in good faith. I do urge them to reconsider. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. * On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:30 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I must vote yes, to sustain the ruling of the chair. When there is agreement between Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, and myself that the rules just don't give us any option here, perhaps that says something. (Though I disagree with a number of the points Ms. Harlos has made in this debate.) Sex trafficking of minors is as vile to me as it is to my colleagues and the members who have taken the time to contact us, and my vote should be in no way construed to approve of the actions alleged to have been committed by the person in question. I fully understand the passion behind the communications we have received, and I feel that, too. The U.S. Constitution does not list all the things that the three branches of government can't do, but we expect them to stay within the lines of their enumerated powers. Just as the U.S. Constitution has a 10th amendment which should be read to limit federal powers, RONR says something similar. RONR, 11th ed., spanning pages 589-590, principle of interpretation #4 provides that: "If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited." Just as a bylaws listing of specified officers prohibits the electing of other officers, the listing of membership requirements prohibits adding other requirements. The bylaws don't have to list the things we can't do in order to restrict our options. Our rights to choose with whom we will collectively associate as fellow members is exercised via our ability to set our own membership rules. Our delegates have the right to amend those rules if they no longer meet our needs, but the LNC shouldn't use an appeal of a chair's ruling to simply throw out a rule that the delegates have established for us. I've heard arguments that the actions in question violate the membership certification or the NAP. I've seen plenty of our members commit fraud on Facebook in their dealings with fellow party members, yet I don't hear motions to rescind their memberships. Will this argument be consistently applied going forward? We haven't rescinded the membership of Arvin Vohra in spite of all the ruckus last term. Though I can think of a number of people who have engaged in conduct so very outrageous that it merits expulsion, I've seen no existing mechanism to do that, and perhaps that's because the delegates fear the potential circular firing squad. For each of us, there's someone in the party who thinks we don't belong in the party...and for reasons nowhere near the awful subject matter we are now faced with. If there is to be a bylaw amendment to create a mechanism, it should be written very carefully. I see I am not the only person to have wondered whether this is a setup situation intended to stir people up. I have no information to demonstrate that it is, but it's the worse-case scenario dropping into our laps just as internal elections heat up... I mean, if you wanted to draw attention, what better way to do it than to send the thing with the prison as the return address? -Alicia On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:35 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote yes to sustain the ruling of the chair.
I will repost here the explanation I gave to the membership.
Years ago I learned of a situation about LNC over-reach regarding Oregon. The decision the LNC made was not done in bad faith. Many could agree that it was the right decision.
That was never the point. The point was whether or not the LNC had the authority to make that decision in the first place - good decision or bad was irrelevant.
They did not have that authority.
I was appalled that they tried to do that so I ran for the LNC originally to protect Colorado and other region 1 states from that ever happening to them.
Opposing LNC overreach is thus my primary motivation for being on the LNC to begin with.
We have another situation that is similar in principle. No one is acting in bad faith. The thing attempting to be done is very arguably a good decision. But we do not have the authority to do so. We would be hypocrites of the highest order if we interpret our bylaws which DO specifically address a situation as allowing something not allowed in those specific instructions. That goes against Libertarian principles of governing and against parliamentary principles of member rights. It is what we condemn in the government every single day.
No matter my emotions, I cannot act outside the bylaws, and I will not.
I urge the delegates to amend the bylaws if this is a power that they wish the LNC to have.
Be careful what you wish for. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
A method to put this power in the hands of the delegates (perhaps by petition of 10% of the prior delegates at the last convention similar to an appeal) is far preferable.
I have heard an argument that our duty is to the many rather than the one.
If that is true, Libertarianism is a fraud.
You may disagree with my position, but it is held with conviction of my principles and in good faith. I respect the many many members that have written. But the ends do not justify the means. Yes, this needs to be fixed. It is not fixed by the LNC abusing its p ower.
I am ashamed at what this had degenerated into. It is producing a lot of heat and very little light.
This never should have been a public social media spectacle. One LNC member took it up on themselves to take this out of a confidential session. That was wrong. Other LNC members took advantage of that fact and are washing their hands of it pointing fingers at that first discloser. That is wrong. To be clear, discussing the situation publication is fine - disclosing the name of the private individual is wrong and is a violation of our duties. And our policy manual makes it clear that it is still wrong even if "he/she did it first." Several LNC members are in violation of this principle.
With the exception of the issue in the paragraph above, there are no bad actions - and even in those bad actions - those were not done in malice but in good faith. One can be wrong in good faith.
The LNC members that disagree with me are doing so in good faith. I do urge them to reconsider.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:30 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com
wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
Very well said Ms Mattson. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:35 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I must vote yes, to sustain the ruling of the chair.
When there is agreement between Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, and myself that the rules just don't give us any option here, perhaps that says something. (Though I disagree with a number of the points Ms. Harlos has made in this debate.)
Sex trafficking of minors is as vile to me as it is to my colleagues and the members who have taken the time to contact us, and my vote should be in no way construed to approve of the actions alleged to have been committed by the person in question. I fully understand the passion behind the communications we have received, and I feel that, too.
The U.S. Constitution does not list all the things that the three branches of government can't do, but we expect them to stay within the lines of their enumerated powers. Just as the U.S. Constitution has a 10th amendment which should be read to limit federal powers, RONR says something similar.
RONR, 11th ed., spanning pages 589-590, principle of interpretation #4 provides that:
"If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited."
Just as a bylaws listing of specified officers prohibits the electing of other officers, the listing of membership requirements prohibits adding other requirements. The bylaws don't have to list the things we can't do in order to restrict our options.
Our rights to choose with whom we will collectively associate as fellow members is exercised via our ability to set our own membership rules. Our delegates have the right to amend those rules if they no longer meet our needs, but the LNC shouldn't use an appeal of a chair's ruling to simply throw out a rule that the delegates have established for us.
I've heard arguments that the actions in question violate the membership certification or the NAP. I've seen plenty of our members commit fraud on Facebook in their dealings with fellow party members, yet I don't hear motions to rescind their memberships. Will this argument be consistently applied going forward? We haven't rescinded the membership of Arvin Vohra in spite of all the ruckus last term.
Though I can think of a number of people who have engaged in conduct so very outrageous that it merits expulsion, I've seen no existing mechanism to do that, and perhaps that's because the delegates fear the potential circular firing squad. For each of us, there's someone in the party who thinks we don't belong in the party...and for reasons nowhere near the awful subject matter we are now faced with.
If there is to be a bylaw amendment to create a mechanism, it should be written very carefully.
I see I am not the only person to have wondered whether this is a setup situation intended to stir people up. I have no information to demonstrate that it is, but it's the worse-case scenario dropping into our laps just as internal elections heat up... I mean, if you wanted to draw attention, what better way to do it than to send the thing with the prison as the return address?
-Alicia
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:35 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote yes to sustain the ruling of the chair.
I will repost here the explanation I gave to the membership.
Years ago I learned of a situation about LNC over-reach regarding Oregon. The decision the LNC made was not done in bad faith. Many could agree that it was the right decision.
That was never the point. The point was whether or not the LNC had the authority to make that decision in the first place - good decision or bad was irrelevant.
They did not have that authority.
I was appalled that they tried to do that so I ran for the LNC originally to protect Colorado and other region 1 states from that ever happening to them.
Opposing LNC overreach is thus my primary motivation for being on the LNC to begin with.
We have another situation that is similar in principle. No one is acting in bad faith. The thing attempting to be done is very arguably a good decision. But we do not have the authority to do so. We would be hypocrites of the highest order if we interpret our bylaws which DO specifically address a situation as allowing something not allowed in those specific instructions. That goes against Libertarian principles of governing and against parliamentary principles of member rights. It is what we condemn in the government every single day.
No matter my emotions, I cannot act outside the bylaws, and I will not.
I urge the delegates to amend the bylaws if this is a power that they wish the LNC to have.
Be careful what you wish for. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
A method to put this power in the hands of the delegates (perhaps by petition of 10% of the prior delegates at the last convention similar to an appeal) is far preferable.
I have heard an argument that our duty is to the many rather than the one.
If that is true, Libertarianism is a fraud.
You may disagree with my position, but it is held with conviction of my principles and in good faith. I respect the many many members that have written. But the ends do not justify the means. Yes, this needs to be fixed. It is not fixed by the LNC abusing its p ower.
I am ashamed at what this had degenerated into. It is producing a lot of heat and very little light.
This never should have been a public social media spectacle. One LNC member took it up on themselves to take this out of a confidential session. That was wrong. Other LNC members took advantage of that fact and are washing their hands of it pointing fingers at that first discloser. That is wrong. To be clear, discussing the situation publication is fine - disclosing the name of the private individual is wrong and is a violation of our duties. And our policy manual makes it clear that it is still wrong even if "he/she did it first." Several LNC members are in violation of this principle.
With the exception of the issue in the paragraph above, there are no bad actions - and even in those bad actions - those were not done in malice but in good faith. One can be wrong in good faith.
The LNC members that disagree with me are doing so in good faith. I do urge them to reconsider.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:30 AM Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com
wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.
-- *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
I will vote in favor of the ruling of the chair. Because this deals with a question of the LNC determining where it's boundaries are when it comes to membership, I believe that the Chair is erring on the side of authority specifically laid out in our governing documents as the best interpretation for this body and the best interpretation to avoid potential negative consequences and avoiding the creation of a dangerous precedent. With the chairs interpretation, the decision lies completely with the delegates in May and protects the rights of our members by not allowing the LNC to have power not explicitly expressed in our documents. Imagine if our federal government exercised this restraint! As an example dealing with explicitly stated rules in our documents: the relevant bylaws do say that we (as a body) must honor all past life memberships. To some this would seem obvious. To the delegates, it was clearly intended that it should never even be a question. The delegates did not build into our bylaws a way to deny or confirm membership. They simply have indicated that if the pledge and dues come in, they are a member. The strict interpretation offered by our Chair protects our membership from rogue LNCs removing members for a variety of reasons regardless of intention. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider this question very carefully. I would also like to add that if the chair is overruled, I will be deferring to the opinions of my state chairs on the main motion which is very mixed at the moment. This vote is mine as it a question of the LNC following procedures, not the main motion, and is based on experience helping write bylaws and other governing documents for libertarian groups for years. We do not like overreaching governance and this would set a dangerous precedent for just that. I consider this an overstep with good intentions. I urge my peers to affirm the Chair's decision and let the delegation decide something different in May if they so choose. Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300 Sent from my Mobile Device On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 08:20 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Forgive the typos pls, my phone sent the msg before I was done correcting them.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On Dec 29, 2019 9:18 AM, john.phillips@lp.org wrote:
I vote no.
Reasoning on the underlying motion aside, Mr Scheetz' summation of the interaction between Roberts and Bylaws covers why I believe the chair to be incorrect. Which I will post below.
I urge all to vote no on the ruling of the chair even if you will turn around and vote against the underlying motion.
The notion that the board cannot do anything is absurd. Whether we should or not is the subject of the underlying motion and should be left for that discussion.
Whether this matter should have come before us is a moot point now. The fact is that it did, and our duty and responsibility to the party requires us to respond. Mr Sarwark' s ruling, his comments, and his actions seek to prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities and duty our constituents and party. This is not something any of us should accept, AGAIN even if you will vote no against the underlying motion.
Support what our bylaws, including there direct referral to Robert's actually say, and vote no on the appeal.
"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most importantly:
• ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated, this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.
The Chair is correct in stating that our Bylaws does not give the authority to remove membership, in fact our Bylaws say nothing about disciplining members at all. However, what our Bylaws DO say:
• ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.
In short, since there is nothing suggesting anything regarding disciplining members, the LNC does have the authority to consult Roberts Rules on the matter since it does cover disciplinary actions by a body:
• Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members.
72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection
The Libertarian Party has the right for its own protection, and as such, we have the right to freely disassociate with individuals whose intentions are unclear given their actions. I strongly urge the LNC to send the money back to this particular individual, but invite him to become a member once he has been found innocent, or once restitution has been made."
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
I will be writing a full rebuttal on why Mr. Scheetz is absolutely wrong on RONR here. And those claiming it, I do hope they intend to tell us how they intend to have the trial that is required by RONR. Of course that part is blatantly ignored. And of course, RONR is only invoked when convenient, otherwise, it is "hey let's not let the rules the delegates put into place get in our way." Here is the fact. This has come up over the years many many times. The delegates PURPOSEFULLY did not give us this power. You cannot say you are protecting the membership by overstepping the explicit boundaries the membership put on us. I apologize for being so blunt, but I see this as a fairly existential question. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. * On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:36 AM Richard Longstreth < richard.longstreth@lp.org> wrote:
I will vote in favor of the ruling of the chair.
Because this deals with a question of the LNC determining where it's boundaries are when it comes to membership, I believe that the Chair is erring on the side of authority specifically laid out in our governing documents as the best interpretation for this body and the best interpretation to avoid potential negative consequences and avoiding the creation of a dangerous precedent. With the chairs interpretation, the decision lies completely with the delegates in May and protects the rights of our members by not allowing the LNC to have power not explicitly expressed in our documents. Imagine if our federal government exercised this restraint!
As an example dealing with explicitly stated rules in our documents: the relevant bylaws do say that we (as a body) must honor all past life memberships. To some this would seem obvious. To the delegates, it was clearly intended that it should never even be a question. The delegates did not build into our bylaws a way to deny or confirm membership. They simply have indicated that if the pledge and dues come in, they are a member. The strict interpretation offered by our Chair protects our membership from rogue LNCs removing members for a variety of reasons regardless of intention.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider this question very carefully. I would also like to add that if the chair is overruled, I will be deferring to the opinions of my state chairs on the main motion which is very mixed at the moment. This vote is mine as it a question of the LNC following procedures, not the main motion, and is based on experience helping write bylaws and other governing documents for libertarian groups for years. We do not like overreaching governance and this would set a dangerous precedent for just that. I consider this an overstep with good intentions.
I urge my peers to affirm the Chair's decision and let the delegation decide something different in May if they so choose.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 08:20 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Forgive the typos pls, my phone sent the msg before I was done correcting them.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On Dec 29, 2019 9:18 AM, john.phillips@lp.org wrote:
I vote no.
Reasoning on the underlying motion aside, Mr Scheetz' summation of the interaction between Roberts and Bylaws covers why I believe the chair to be incorrect. Which I will post below.
I urge all to vote no on the ruling of the chair even if you will turn around and vote against the underlying motion.
The notion that the board cannot do anything is absurd. Whether we should or not is the subject of the underlying motion and should be left for that discussion.
Whether this matter should have come before us is a moot point now. The fact is that it did, and our duty and responsibility to the party requires us to respond. Mr Sarwark' s ruling, his comments, and his actions seek to prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities and duty our constituents and party. This is not something any of us should accept, AGAIN even if you will vote no against the underlying motion.
Support what our bylaws, including there direct referral to Robert's actually say, and vote no on the appeal.
"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most importantly:
• ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated, this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.
The Chair is correct in stating that our Bylaws does not give the authority to remove membership, in fact our Bylaws say nothing about disciplining members at all. However, what our Bylaws DO say:
• ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.
In short, since there is nothing suggesting anything regarding disciplining members, the LNC does have the authority to consult Roberts Rules on the matter since it does cover disciplinary actions by a body:
• Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members.
72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection
The Libertarian Party has the right for its own protection, and as such, we have the right to freely disassociate with individuals whose intentions are unclear given their actions. I strongly urge the LNC to send the money back to this particular individual, but invite him to become a member once he has been found innocent, or once restitution has been made."
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
Mr. Longstreth, I will respect whatever decision you make on the underlying motion if, God forbid, it comes down to that. But let me offer you some counsel from my time in that seat. I always deferred to the chairs unless it violated my fundamental principles. On this question, I would never vote for the underlying motion. I understand I may feel differently than you, I just wanted to share with you that on certain things, I was very open I could not violate certain boundaries even if every state chair wanted me to. There are good arguments for another tact, I just wanted you to know how I handled. YMMV. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. * On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:40 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be writing a full rebuttal on why Mr. Scheetz is absolutely wrong on RONR here. And those claiming it, I do hope they intend to tell us how they intend to have the trial that is required by RONR. Of course that part is blatantly ignored. And of course, RONR is only invoked when convenient, otherwise, it is "hey let's not let the rules the delegates put into place get in our way."
Here is the fact. This has come up over the years many many times. The delegates PURPOSEFULLY did not give us this power. You cannot say you are protecting the membership by overstepping the explicit boundaries the membership put on us.
I apologize for being so blunt, but I see this as a fairly existential question.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:36 AM Richard Longstreth < richard.longstreth@lp.org> wrote:
I will vote in favor of the ruling of the chair.
Because this deals with a question of the LNC determining where it's boundaries are when it comes to membership, I believe that the Chair is erring on the side of authority specifically laid out in our governing documents as the best interpretation for this body and the best interpretation to avoid potential negative consequences and avoiding the creation of a dangerous precedent. With the chairs interpretation, the decision lies completely with the delegates in May and protects the rights of our members by not allowing the LNC to have power not explicitly expressed in our documents. Imagine if our federal government exercised this restraint!
As an example dealing with explicitly stated rules in our documents: the relevant bylaws do say that we (as a body) must honor all past life memberships. To some this would seem obvious. To the delegates, it was clearly intended that it should never even be a question. The delegates did not build into our bylaws a way to deny or confirm membership. They simply have indicated that if the pledge and dues come in, they are a member. The strict interpretation offered by our Chair protects our membership from rogue LNCs removing members for a variety of reasons regardless of intention.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider this question very carefully. I would also like to add that if the chair is overruled, I will be deferring to the opinions of my state chairs on the main motion which is very mixed at the moment. This vote is mine as it a question of the LNC following procedures, not the main motion, and is based on experience helping write bylaws and other governing documents for libertarian groups for years. We do not like overreaching governance and this would set a dangerous precedent for just that. I consider this an overstep with good intentions.
I urge my peers to affirm the Chair's decision and let the delegation decide something different in May if they so choose.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 08:20 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Forgive the typos pls, my phone sent the msg before I was done correcting them.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On Dec 29, 2019 9:18 AM, john.phillips@lp.org wrote:
I vote no.
Reasoning on the underlying motion aside, Mr Scheetz' summation of the interaction between Roberts and Bylaws covers why I believe the chair to be incorrect. Which I will post below.
I urge all to vote no on the ruling of the chair even if you will turn around and vote against the underlying motion.
The notion that the board cannot do anything is absurd. Whether we should or not is the subject of the underlying motion and should be left for that discussion.
Whether this matter should have come before us is a moot point now. The fact is that it did, and our duty and responsibility to the party requires us to respond. Mr Sarwark' s ruling, his comments, and his actions seek to prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities and duty our constituents and party. This is not something any of us should accept, AGAIN even if you will vote no against the underlying motion.
Support what our bylaws, including there direct referral to Robert's actually say, and vote no on the appeal.
"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most importantly:
• ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated, this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.
The Chair is correct in stating that our Bylaws does not give the authority to remove membership, in fact our Bylaws say nothing about disciplining members at all. However, what our Bylaws DO say:
• ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.
In short, since there is nothing suggesting anything regarding disciplining members, the LNC does have the authority to consult Roberts Rules on the matter since it does cover disciplinary actions by a body:
• Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members.
72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection
The Libertarian Party has the right for its own protection, and as such, we have the right to freely disassociate with individuals whose intentions are unclear given their actions. I strongly urge the LNC to send the money back to this particular individual, but invite him to become a member once he has been found innocent, or once restitution has been made."
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
What are you referring to Ms Adams? On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:01 AM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:
In my capacity as the Region 7 alternate, I vote no.
My Region Representative can , as always, cast a differing vote nullifying mine if she so chooses, however as this vote is SOLELY to determine if the chairs ruling is "correct" or not , and, I am being told that at LEAST one membership in recent past has been refused by the office, (a membership purchased for DJT) and it is the chairs stance that we can not refuse although we have refused during our chairs tenure, I vote no.
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
A sustaining membership requires a certification opposing the initiation of force. Such a certification from the President was not made, so there can be no sustaining membership from the President, even if someone else would like to make a donation on his behalf to the Libertarian party. -Nick On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:06 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I was informed that recently a party member chose to purchase a membership as a gift for the current sitting president and said membership was refused. I realize some will say that that membership may have not been consensual however if that is the door we're going to open, then every gift membership that has been purchased for another without the express written consent prior must also be refused. If that is the door we want to open I am fine and comfortable to have that discussion, however in doing so please understand that what we will actually be saying is that this board or our chair or our staff do indeed have the power to decide to not honor a membership and that in fact is the underlying question before us in my opinion
On Dec 29, 2019 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
What are you referring to Ms Adams?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:01 AM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:
In my capacity as the Region 7 alternate, I vote no.
My Region Representative can , as always, cast a differing vote nullifying mine if she so chooses, however as this vote is SOLELY to determine if the chairs ruling is "correct" or not , and, I am being told that at LEAST one membership in recent past has been refused by the office, (a membership purchased for DJT) and it is the chairs stance that we can not refuse although we have refused during our chairs tenure, I vote no.
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I would like to remind my fellow members that this is debate and voting on the question at hand, not to bring up new questions that will require separate motions. Best Regards, Francis Wendt LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111 From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Erin Adams via Lnc-business Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:21 PM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Cc: Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair Or for that matter, by anyone who was gifted a membership by another party? On Dec 29, 2019 1:19 PM, Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org <mailto:erin.adams@lp.org> > wrote: Was such a declaration made by Bishop Hayes when his membership was granted? Erin Adams Region 7 alt. On Dec 29, 2019 12:51 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > wrote: A sustaining membership requires a certification opposing the initiation of force. Such a certification from the President was not made, so there can be no sustaining membership from the President, even if someone else would like to make a donation on his behalf to the Libertarian party. -Nick On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:06 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > wrote:
I was informed that recently a party member chose to purchase a membership as a gift for the current sitting president and said membership was refused. I realize some will say that that membership may have not been consensual however if that is the door we're going to open, then every gift membership that has been purchased for another without the express written consent prior must also be refused. If that is the door we want to open I am fine and comfortable to have that discussion, however in doing so please understand that what we will actually be saying is that this board or our chair or our staff do indeed have the power to decide to not honor a membership and that in fact is the underlying question before us in my opinion
On Dec 29, 2019 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com> > wrote:
What are you referring to Ms Adams?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:01 AM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org <mailto:erin.adams@lp.org> > wrote:
In my capacity as the Region 7 alternate, I vote no.
My Region Representative can , as always, cast a differing vote nullifying mine if she so chooses, however as this vote is SOLELY to determine if the chairs ruling is "correct" or not , and, I am being told that at LEAST one membership in recent past has been refused by the office, (a membership purchased for DJT) and it is the chairs stance that we can not refuse although we have refused during our chairs tenure, I vote no.
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
DFT did not sign the pledge. Incompetent scam have pledge signed by guardian. There is no comparison. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:19 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Was such a declaration made by Bishop Hayes when his membership was granted?
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
On Dec 29, 2019 12:51 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
A sustaining membership requires a certification opposing the initiation of force. Such a certification from the President was not made, so there can be no sustaining membership from the President, even if someone else would like to make a donation on his behalf to the Libertarian party.
-Nick
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:06 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I was informed that recently a party member chose to purchase a membership as a gift for the current sitting president and said membership was refused. I realize some will say that that membership may have not been consensual however if that is the door we're going to open, then every gift membership that has been purchased for another without the express written consent prior must also be refused. If that is the door we want to open I am fine and comfortable to have that discussion, however in doing so please understand that what we will actually be saying is that this board or our chair or our staff do indeed have the power to decide to not honor a membership and that in fact is the underlying question before us in my opinion
On Dec 29, 2019 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
What are you referring to Ms Adams?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:01 AM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:
In my capacity as the Region 7 alternate, I vote no.
My Region Representative can , as always, cast a differing vote nullifying mine if she so chooses, however as this vote is SOLELY to determine if the chairs ruling is "correct" or not , and, I am being told that at LEAST one membership in recent past has been refused by the office, (a membership purchased for DJT) and it is the chairs stance that we can not refuse although we have refused during our chairs tenure, I vote no.
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
--
*In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
Typos- incompetents. This has never been in question. And that is not the issue here so it is quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
DFT did not sign the pledge.
Incompetent scam have pledge signed by guardian.
There is no comparison.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:19 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Was such a declaration made by Bishop Hayes when his membership was granted?
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
On Dec 29, 2019 12:51 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
A sustaining membership requires a certification opposing the initiation of force. Such a certification from the President was not made, so there can be no sustaining membership from the President, even if someone else would like to make a donation on his behalf to the Libertarian party.
-Nick
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:06 PM Erin Adams via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I was informed that recently a party member chose to purchase a membership as a gift for the current sitting president and said membership was refused. I realize some will say that that membership may have not been consensual however if that is the door we're going to open, then every gift membership that has been purchased for another without the express written consent prior must also be refused. If that is the door we want to open I am fine and comfortable to have that discussion, however in doing so please understand that what we will actually be saying is that this board or our chair or our staff do indeed have the power to decide to not honor a membership and that in fact is the underlying question before us in my opinion
On Dec 29, 2019 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
What are you referring to Ms Adams?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:01 AM Erin Adams <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:
In my capacity as the Region 7 alternate, I vote no.
My Region Representative can , as always, cast a differing vote nullifying mine if she so chooses, however as this vote is SOLELY to determine if the chairs ruling is "correct" or not , and, I am being told that at LEAST one membership in recent past has been refused by the office, (a membership purchased for DJT) and it is the chairs stance that we can not refuse although we have refused during our chairs tenure, I vote no.
Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.
--
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
--
*In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
A counterpoint if you will, Although Robert’s allows deliberative bodies to punish their members, sustaining members are not members of the LNC. Thus, the deliberative body that is afforded the right of punishment and expulsion is the body of delegates at convention. Our Bylaws do have a mechanism for how LNC members are removed, but not how members are removed. Should the delegates chose to adopt such rules, even during convention, it is the duty of this body to uphold them. Best Regards, Francis Wendt LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111 From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of john.phillips--- via Lnc-business Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 8:18 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Cc: john.phillips@lp.org; Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair I vote no. Reasoning on the underlying motion aside, Mr Scheetz' summation of the interaction between Roberts and Bylaws covers why I believe the chair to be incorrect. Which I will post below. I urge all to vote no on the ruling of the chair even if you will turn around and vote against the underlying motion. The notion that the board cannot do anything is absurd. Whether we should or not is the subject of the underlying motion and should be left for that discussion. Whether this matter should have come before us is a moot point now. The fact is that it did, and our duty and responsibility to the party requires us to respond. Mr Sarwark' s ruling, his comments, and his actions seek to prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities and duty our constituents and party. This is not something any of us should accept, AGAIN even if you will vote no against the underlying motion. Support what our bylaws, including there direct referral to Robert's actually say, and vote no on the appeal. "The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member. Most importantly: • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for violating the individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation of the certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person has served time and offered something to the people whose rights he violated, this is a fact and must be taken into consideration. The Chair is correct in stating that our Bylaws does not give the authority to remove membership, in fact our Bylaws say nothing about disciplining members at all. However, what our Bylaws DO say: • ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party. In short, since there is nothing suggesting anything regarding disciplining members, the LNC does have the authority to consult Roberts Rules on the matter since it does cover disciplinary actions by a body: • Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial of Their Members. 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection The Libertarian Party has the right for its own protection, and as such, we have the right to freely disassociate with individuals whose intentions are unclear given their actions. I strongly urge the LNC to send the money back to this particular individual, but invite him to become a member once he has been found innocent, or once restitution has been made." John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
I vote NAY, against the ruling of the Chair. In Liberty, Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Libertarian National Committee Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt "Those without power cannot defend freedom" On 2019-12-29 03:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote Yes, in favor of the ruling from the Chair. In Liberty, Brent Olsen Region 4 Alternate On 2019-12-29 00:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote No on this motion. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
The ruling was we cannot refuse memberships when the bylaws have been fulfilled. You are incorrect Ms Adams. This body cannot even by a unaminous vote violate the bylaws. And if you are appealing to RONR tell me how you are conducting the trial. That part gets ignored. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:07 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote No on this motion.
--- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
-- * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote no. I am not convinced Mr. Phillips's motion is unambiguously against the Bylaws, precluding us from considering it. Both Mr. Phillips and the Chair acknowledge that the LNC can direct the refund of a contribution in at least some circumstances. The Chair's ruling that the second portion is moot is not reason enough to me to prevent consideration. I am mindful of Dr. Lark's observation that the ultimate outcome of the motion may violate the spirit of the Bylaws, and I'm very mindful of not wanting this body to become consumed by a purge-of-the-month, one case at a time. I appreciate the desire to let the delegates at convention decide this one, and I'll only add that my mail is running about 70-30 in favor of us considering this matter. JBH ------------ Joe Bishop-Henchman LNC Member (At-Large) joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837 On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
Mr. Bishop-Henchman I have a question. In what instances did the Chair indicate we could refund a membership? Perhaps I am missing something here but I never saw such a claim. Unless you are referring to a pet, but I don't want to guess. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. * On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 8:25 AM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote no. I am not convinced Mr. Phillips's motion is unambiguously against the Bylaws, precluding us from considering it. Both Mr. Phillips and the Chair acknowledge that the LNC can direct the refund of a contribution in at least some circumstances. The Chair's ruling that the second portion is moot is not reason enough to me to prevent consideration.
I am mindful of Dr. Lark's observation that the ultimate outcome of the motion may violate the spirit of the Bylaws, and I'm very mindful of not wanting this body to become consumed by a purge-of-the-month, one case at a time. I appreciate the desire to let the delegates at convention decide this one, and I'll only add that my mail is running about 70-30 in favor of us considering this matter.
JBH
------------ Joe Bishop-Henchman LNC Member (At-Large) joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote no Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
On Jan 2, 2020, at 8:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Mr. Bishop-Henchman I have a question. In what instances did the Chair indicate we could refund a membership? Perhaps I am missing something here but I never saw such a claim. Unless you are referring to a pet, but I don't want to guess.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 8:25 AM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote no. I am not convinced Mr. Phillips's motion is unambiguously against the Bylaws, precluding us from considering it. Both Mr. Phillips and the Chair acknowledge that the LNC can direct the refund of a contribution in at least some circumstances. The Chair's ruling that the second portion is moot is not reason enough to me to prevent consideration.
I am mindful of Dr. Lark's observation that the ultimate outcome of the motion may violate the spirit of the Bylaws, and I'm very mindful of not wanting this body to become consumed by a purge-of-the-month, one case at a time. I appreciate the desire to let the delegates at convention decide this one, and I'll only add that my mail is running about 70-30 in favor of us considering this matter.
JBH
------------ Joe Bishop-Henchman LNC Member (At-Large) joe.bishop-henchman@lp.org www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
Yes On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:30 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
-- *Whitney Bilyeu* Libertarian National Committee Region 7 Representative 281.433.4966 LP.ORG
I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2019-12-29 00:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
REMINDER - This ballot will expire at midnight PST 1/5/2020 *PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the Chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.* I have noted the following (please inform me of any corrections): * Voting AYE:* Bilyeu, Hagan, Harlos, Lark, Longstreth, Mattson, O’Donnell, Olsen, Redpath *Voting NAY: *Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith *Express Abstentions:* None *Not Voting:* Hewitt, Sarwark, Van Horn * For a current tally of 9-6-0* * Notes: * Ms. Adams' earlier “nay” vote was superseded by Ms. Bilyeu. Dr. Olsen’s vote is counted unless Mr. Hewitt steps in to vote. * You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1 <https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1>* *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 8:38 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I vote yes.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2019-12-29 00:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
I vote: Yes I sought guidance from the Region 3 state affiliate leadership. As I've made it clear that I serve as a Representative for Region 3. Which means that I vote on issues under consideration by the LNC, in a manner consistent with the wishes of Region 3 leadership. For an item on which I seek voter guidance from the Region 3 leadership, I ask that 3 out of 4 states agree, in order for me to vote a 'yes' or "no". If a tie between the states, I'd abstain. For this ballot issue, of an appeal to the Chair's ruling, 3 out of 4 states within Region 3 have requested that I vote to sustain the Chair's ruling. (One of the Region 3 state affiliates didn't provide feedback) --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
Thank you for that insight EVH On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 5:29 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:
I vote: Yes
I sought guidance from the Region 3 state affiliate leadership. As I've made it clear that I serve as a Representative for Region 3. Which means that I vote on issues under consideration by the LNC, in a manner consistent with the wishes of Region 3 leadership. For an item on which I seek voter guidance from the Region 3 leadership, I ask that 3 out of 4 states agree, in order for me to vote a 'yes' or "no". If a tie between the states, I'd abstain. For this ballot issue, of an appeal to the Chair's ruling, 3 out of 4 states within Region 3 have requested that I vote to sustain the Chair's ruling. (One of the Region 3 state affiliates didn't provide feedback)
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
-- * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
Voting has ENDED for the email ballot 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair All names are listed alphabetically by surname. Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order. Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith Threshold Required: A majority of no votes is required to overturn the ruling of the Chair. Voting "aye": Bilyeu, Hagan, Harlos, Lark, Longstreth, Mattson, O’Donnell, Olsen, Redpath, Van Horn Voting "nay": Bishop-Henchman, Goldstein, Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith Express Abstention: None No Vote Cast: Sarwark * With a final vote tally of 10-6-0-1 the ruling of the Chair is SUSTAINED.* Note: Ms. Adams' earlier “nay” vote was superseded by Ms. Bilyeu. Dr. Olsen’s vote was counted as Mr. Hewitt did not vote. You can view the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: *https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1* <https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1> Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. Please notify me of any discrepancies. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. * On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 5:45 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for that insight EVH
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 5:29 PM Elizabeth Van Horn < elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:
I vote: Yes
I sought guidance from the Region 3 state affiliate leadership. As I've made it clear that I serve as a Representative for Region 3. Which means that I vote on issues under consideration by the LNC, in a manner consistent with the wishes of Region 3 leadership. For an item on which I seek voter guidance from the Region 3 leadership, I ask that 3 out of 4 states agree, in order for me to vote a 'yes' or "no". If a tie between the states, I'd abstain. For this ballot issue, of an appeal to the Chair's ruling, 3 out of 4 states within Region 3 have requested that I vote to sustain the Chair's ruling. (One of the Region 3 state affiliates didn't provide feedback)
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2019-12-29 03:30, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EMAIL BALLOT 191229-1: Appeal from Ruling of the Chair
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 5, 2020 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith
=============================================
Motion: Appeal from the ruling of the chair that the motion stated by Mr. Phillips (located here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/F9RokJMpAwAJ and the ruling of the chair is here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lncvotes/rpDQqjc2J5k/Meak1YRCAwAJ) was out of order.
=============================================
THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Simple majority
PROCEDURAL NOTE: A YES vote sustains the ruling the chair. A NO vote over-rules the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority of NO votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/ballot191229-1. Votes are noted with a link to the actual ballot cast for verification. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.
Please notify me of any discrepancies.
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
--
* In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *
participants (18)
-
Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) -
Alicia Mattson -
brent.olsen＠lp.org -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Elizabeth Van Horn -
Erin Adams -
francis.wendt＠lp.org -
Joe Bishop-Henchman -
john.phillips＠lp.org -
joshua.smith＠lp.org -
justin.odonnell＠lp.org -
Nicholas Sarwark -
Richard Longstreth -
Sam Goldstein -
Steven Nekhaila -
Tim Hagan -
Whitney Bilyeu