[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 22:43:54 EDT 2016 

Patrick, I didn't assume your motion was based on Mr. Smith but the
official notice from the members in NH.

-- 
*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 8:28 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hmmm.  He ultimately asked me if I had a contact in Austin, so he could
> get more involved...
>
> On Sep 16, 2016 9:06 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@
> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160916/24154654/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list