[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Fri Sep 16 21:50:34 EDT 2016

P.S.  This is the response I received from Mr. Smith when I inquired about
his location/affiliate...

"Sadly I haven't taken the initiative to be active in the party. I just
heard about the motion and wanted someone to hear my position."

So, his position has been heard, and I have let him know how he can get
involved with his local/state affiliate in order to take a more active role
in the process of selecting our nominees.

Whitney Bilyeu
Region 7 Rep

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160916/72922388/attachment-0002.html>