[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

This request is widespread, and I believe it should be heard to put it to
rest. Further it should be heard for another reason.  The fact is that our
members have the right to appeal LNC decisions, and should have a decision
in order to decide how to exercise their rights.  They deserve it.  And I
say this as someone who opposes this motion.  I however believe this
sentiment represents a significant minority of our members, and they
deserve to be heard.


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Patrick McKnight <
patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you all for your consideration. I will withdraw my motion.
>
> I agree we should not entertain every suggestion brought to us by every
> member. However I've had this brought to me by many different members of my
> region on many different occasions. There is a significant minority of our
> party that feels frustrated, betrayed and alienated. They deserve to have a
> voice in our proceedings.
>
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You'll note that I specifically said that if someone else's exercise of
>> said judgment leads them to a conclusion along the lines of "I'll submit
>> everything that comes to me, whether I like it or not" then I have no
>> objection to that, I simply do not arrive at the same conclusion.
>>
>> You'd search in vain for a sentence in my post along the lines of "member
>> are a nuisance."  Of course they aren't.  I don't even mind getting a lot
>> of emails - I see it as part of the job.  I gave my reasons for my beliefs,
>> and they had nothing to do with seeing members as a nuisance or with having
>> a cluttered inbox.  (If I worried about that, I can tell you one committee
>> I wouldn't be serving on!)
>>
>> I also did not say that because the delegates pass bylaws, we shouldn't
>> hear them.  What I said was that the delegates expect us to answer to them,
>> not to a smaller number of more vocal members.  We are supposed to
>> represent those who elected us (or, in some cases, those who might have
>> elected us), not just those who email us.  Additionally, we're charged with
>> duties beyond representation, in my view - and I held that view when I was
>> an alternate, as well.  First and foremost, we are charged with the duty of
>> being a board member, looking after the interests of this party, and
>> governing it.  At the same time, we need checks - that's why I pushed for,
>> at the suggestion of Dr. Phillies, and got, a procedure that made it easier
>> to remove the Representative and Alternate when our region was forming.  My
>> position was then that I would act in what I thought the best interests of
>> this party, and if people disagreed enough, they could remove me, so I
>> thought it was important that removal be easy.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I get favourable emails.  And I expressed my disagreement with this line
>>> of thought in my response to Alicia.  Part of the Bylaws is having
>>> *Regional Representatives* which are to be the voice of the people in that
>>> region.  I have no issue with certain minimum bars set.  I, in fact, did
>>> so.  I had a few members grumble to me that they wished me to bring such a
>>> motion.  I told them come to me in a group of ten willing to put their
>>> names on a request, and then I will run that request by the State Chairs of
>>> my region to see if they agreed it should be heard since ultimately I serve
>>> at the pleasure of the Region 1 State Chairs.  No one has met this
>>> standard.  For less earth-shattering measures, I will bring a motion by
>>> just one member.  If there were ever a flood, I would set some stricter
>>> bars.
>>>
>>> Region 1 is turning around in perception and it is my goal to have it
>>> fully turned around in perception by the end of my term.  And this
>>> particular attitude of mine is one reason why.  Members are not a
>>> nuisance.  And the delegation in passing Bylaws at convention I do not
>>> think is a reason not to hear them... we are divided into regions for a
>>> reason.  I said this at the last meeting, and I will say it until the last
>>> second of my term.  I take the *regional* part of *regional representative*
>>> very seriously and I urge every single other regional representative to
>>> consider if my approach to that is working.  I submit it is.  I invite
>>> anyone to be a member of my mailing list and LNC Region 1 FB discussion
>>> list.  Ask the State Chairs in my Region.
>>>
>>> If reading an email request is too time-consuming and distracting to
>>> other members, I do not know what to say, but I will keep my promise to my
>>> region.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have my frustrations with the campaign, as you well know.  I continue
>>>> to be frustrated by the desire within the party - it's not widespread, but
>>>> it's there - to yank failure from the jaws of success.  The contrast
>>>> between the New Hampshire Union Leader supporting our candidate and a group
>>>> within our affiliate coming up with this is stunning to me.
>>>>
>>>> Say what you want about him - when Wayne Allyn Root decided he could
>>>> not support our ticket, for, in my opinion, poor reasons - he resigned, not
>>>> just from the LNC, but from his party membership.  Others need not follow
>>>> his lead, of course, and I don't want them to, but perhaps those who now
>>>> oppose our ticket for their own reasons can gain some understanding and
>>>> appreciation for the position in which he found himself.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have this crazy notion - although it's shared more, it
>>>> seems, in this party than in at least one other major party - that it is
>>>> reasonable to put up people for jobs who are at least marginally qualified
>>>> to actually do the job.  This year, we managed to nominate not only our
>>>> most credible and experienced ticket in history, but the most credible and
>>>> experienced ticket in the race, and one of only two tickets that is even
>>>> marginally qualified.  I am getting extremely tired of the desire I keep
>>>> seeing to turn around and bite the ankles of this ticket because they have
>>>> the audacity to think for themselves, and to think carefully, about issues,
>>>> to recognize the difficulty in applying aspirational ideas to actual policy
>>>> and then to engage in the work of figuring out meaningful policy, and their
>>>> openness to thinking about suggestions, often expressed as "I'm open to
>>>> that."  Do I have my own frustrations?  Absolutely - but not because they
>>>> run for office and try to win.
>>>>
>>>> That aside, though, I disagree that this is not a sufficient response.
>>>> Technically, yes, there are ways to address this.  We had trouble getting 6
>>>> members to agree that we should discuss our budget before amending it.  The
>>>> probability that there would be 6 requests for a meeting to discuss this is
>>>> nearly 0.  More to the point, though, I disagree that there is some
>>>> responsibility for members of this board to make any motion suggested to
>>>> them.  (Note:  While in the process of editing this, the Secretary largely
>>>> stole my thunder, but I have a slightly different take so I decided to send
>>>> this anyway).  We are not automatons for forwarding any idea handed to us;
>>>> members of this board are chosen for our judgment, and a large part of this
>>>> is making judgments about what motions to make.  Thinking in parliamentary
>>>> terms, the reason seconds are needed in most assemblies is to stop the body
>>>> from having to spend time on things without two people wanting it brought
>>>> forward.  Is it unreasonable to think that this board need only consider
>>>> items if one member thinks them worth bringing forward?
>>>>
>>>> Let me be clear - if some members of this board want to do that, that's
>>>> their right.  That's part of their own exercise of judgment.  However, it
>>>> is far from obligatory.  I also don't think it's beneficial.  The largest
>>>> and, in theory at least, most representative body of this party is the
>>>> delegates in convention.  The delegates are the highest governing body of
>>>> this party.  They adopted bylaws asking us to be a board and exercise
>>>> governance, not hand that task off to anyone who calls one of us up or
>>>> passes a motion at an affiliate of an affiliate.  More to the point, they
>>>> elected, in large part, this board, and the rest was populated in
>>>> accordance with their instructions in the bylaws.  If we believe that we
>>>> must bring forth every motion presented to us, what we're actually doing is
>>>> empowering the vocal few in place of the quiet many.  We are allowing those
>>>> who are the loudest to speak over the delegates, who exercised their
>>>> control in the governance of the party by selecting an LNC (with the
>>>> exception of those seats filled by the LNC and those regional rep positions
>>>> not elected at caucuses at convention).  I think most of our members are
>>>> actually pleased with our candidates saturating the media, being
>>>> disappointed with polling in the double digits, and being lauded as the
>>>> most credible and viable third party ticket since, well, when exactly?  In
>>>> late August, as a reminder, Ross Perot polled at 8%.  John Anderson polled
>>>> in the neighborhood of 5-6%.  I guess since George Wallace?  However, we do
>>>> not get emails from members saying "things are going alright."  We don't
>>>> get emails from members who are not upset about the ticket.  The comments
>>>> we receive are unrepresentative.
>>>>
>>>> Another thing worth clarifying:  I absolutely love getting contacted by
>>>> members.  I get emails from members on a regular basis, I engage with them,
>>>> and I often, in fact, act on suggestions from members - when I find doing
>>>> so worthwhile.  I simply don't feel obligated to pass on everything that
>>>> comes to me.  If I think it's a bad idea, I don't do it.  Often, though, I
>>>> think suggestions are good ideas, and are things I would not have thought
>>>> of.  In fact, I've received messages during meetings and acted on them
>>>> within just a couple minutes.  That happened at the meeting we just held in
>>>> Las Vegas.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, amidst all this, the micromanagement and the bickering and
>>>> the responsiveness, there seems to be less enthusiasm about performing
>>>> actual board functions and providing governance and oversight.  If the time
>>>> we spend considering motions that not even one member of this body thinks
>>>> are worth considering could be spent on something more productive, we might
>>>> be a long way towards a more financially responsible and effective party.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For my opinion, I don't think that is an adequate response to said
>>>>> members.  And FWIW I would oppose said motion for reasons I would give in
>>>>> actual debate. However members deserve to have their motions heard.  Our
>>>>> Policy Manual provides means to ask for a meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> If members from my region got a request to me (I proactively
>>>>> anticipated this and put conditions in place for me to bring such a serious
>>>>> motion and communicated those requirements to some inquiring members), I
>>>>> would bring the motion and ask for a meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask for a meeting to hear this Patrick, I will join.  Members
>>>>> deserve to have their serious motions heard and should not be stymied
>>>>> incurably.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, I recently received a similar request from a Michael
>>>>>> Smith, whose location is unknown to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will share the group's responses with him...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016 10:53 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good morning everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was informed that my previous emails should go to the entirety of
>>>>>>> the LNC and therefore am forwarding that email chain which is below.
>>>>>>> Apologies, and thank you for your time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13
>>>>>>> covers for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>>>>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>>>>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>>>>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>>>>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>>>>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>>>>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree with
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our ticket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so I'm
>>>>>>>> afraid I
>>>>>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP
>>>>>>>>> Seacoast, a
>>>>>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the
>>>>>>>>> presidential ballot
>>>>>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make a
>>>>>>>>> motion to
>>>>>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill
>>>>>>>>> Weld as
>>>>>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both
>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be
>>>>>>>>> libertarian. Per
>>>>>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s nomination
>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National
>>>>>>>>> Committee
>>>>>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low probability
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in the
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you
>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without
>>>>>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled
>>>>>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your
>>>>>>>>> principle and
>>>>>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?"
>>>>>>>>> Members of
>>>>>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We will
>>>>>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: Brian McQuade <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>> To: Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: sam.goldstein at lp.org, patrick.mcknight at lp.org,
>>>>>>> joshua.katz at lp.org, daniel.hayes at lp.org, starchild at lp.org,
>>>>>>> william.redpath at lp.org
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:24:12 -0500
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Motion to Suspend
>>>>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13
>>>>>>> covers for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>>>>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>>>>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>>>>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>>>>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>>>>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>>>>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree with
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our ticket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so I'm
>>>>>>>> afraid I
>>>>>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP
>>>>>>>>> Seacoast, a
>>>>>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the
>>>>>>>>> presidential ballot
>>>>>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make a
>>>>>>>>> motion to
>>>>>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill
>>>>>>>>> Weld as
>>>>>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both
>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be
>>>>>>>>> libertarian. Per
>>>>>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s nomination
>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National
>>>>>>>>> Committee
>>>>>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low probability
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in the
>>>>>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you
>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without
>>>>>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled
>>>>>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your
>>>>>>>>> principle and
>>>>>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?"
>>>>>>>>> Members of
>>>>>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We will
>>>>>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160916/1f8e90cc/attachment-0002.html>