[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Fri Sep 16 22:05:18 EDT 2016

Whitney,

My understanding is Mr. Smith is from NY which is in my region.

Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160916/4940be2b/attachment-0002.html>