[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Fri Sep 16 22:00:32 EDT 2016

Patrick, yes it would require scheduling a special meeting.  And I think
all of us know this represents a significant minority of our Party.  Enough
that deserve a hearing.  I don't think it requires that anyone support it.
Arvin brought the motion in Orlando knowing no one supported it.  That is
not the point IMHO. The members deserve a decision.  And that decision will
(I judge) to be a resounding denial.  But this is a serious matter that
 they bring, and they deserve a decision so that they can appeal if they
choose to.

I don't support it.  I have said here and many times on social media why
and that I don't.  But I also agree that this is a very weighty issue that
deserves a hearing and the right to appeal.

This is cutting off members' right to appeal through process and not
through merits, and I don't think that is just.

-- 
*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 7:50 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fb7b866b/attachment-0002.html>