[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee Re: Motion:

Tue Jan 10 11:52:46 EST 2017

Wes,

That is an excellent motion and one I could sponsor and support with a few
changes since it looks like
Ms.Harlos would be Chair for Life in the current wording.

Sam

Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
Member at Large
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
317-582-1773 Fax

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> Staff will do our best to fit in assistance on this project, if it passes,
> as we have been already.
>
> Perhaps a better motion might be along the lines of *"The LNC establishes
> a Historical Committee to help preserve and publish historical documents of
> the party and is granted a starting budget of $5,000. Caryn Ann Harlos is
> appointed chair with authority to appoint up to four others." *
>
> Delete all that other stuff.
>
> I support the project in general, but will have to be cautious against
> spending too much staff time on it. But, I think I can work well with Caryn
> Ann on this, though not always helping as quick and fast as she would like.
>
> I apologize if I've overstepped my welcome on this topic by suggesting
> wording for a motion. I just hate to see the effort fail due to getting
> bogged down in unnecessary and unhelpful bureaucracy.
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
> On 1/10/2017 10:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> My copy/paste got mangled:
>
> Thank you Joshua:
>
>
> ==My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
> anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?  ==
>
> There are things not being made available or stored in a meaningful way we
> would like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of past
> press releases.  What good are they doing in a file cabinet?  So what we
> are doing now is storing them (either physically or electronically) but not
> preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And
> even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is one category, I
> could expand this further) have not been done reliably - i.e. the "lost"
> data on the websites that might be better suited on an LPedia interface.
> And this could happen again.  This would insure a committee actually
> provides oversight and responsibility for making sure these things get done
> so it doesn't became an LNC discussion that is too remote to other things
> we have to discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the
> tangible output that members paid money for.
>
> ==So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
> the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
> from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
> so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
> impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
> do that?==
>
> An organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly
> something "official" about volunteering for an actual committee and having
> that organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can scan, go off
> merrily into their own files, and it isn't preserved for party members at
> large - which is something we have already committed to for years with
> LPedia, and done it poorly.
>
> ==Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this
> committee decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm
> not sure on that.==
>
> It will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
> destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will decide on best practice
> for document preservation and best order of going about the project. It
> will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have to worry about
> it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into something that needs some dedicated
> management.
>
> ==  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and
> will only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might
> impact the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy
> Manual a bit more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave
> the rules of order parts out of the committee description and scope).  ==
>
> To the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions on that.
>
> ==Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been
> narrowed somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures
> seems to have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it
> giving the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I
> did see it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out
> - I might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
> committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
> line).  ===
>
> It is removed with the potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
> first source would be to ask for voluntary donors just like volunteers.
>
> ==
>
> I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment,
> but I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
> suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==
>
> In some areas perhaps, but I am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History
> enthusiast "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have volunteers
> ready to give full days in scanning - these are not people volunteering to
> give full days for anything else.
>
> The website issues over two transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on
> Ken) were botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it certainly
> looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet it is also
> understandable that this coming up at a quarterly meeting is frustrating
> amongst all the other business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and
> puts people who want to spend the time on this and deeply care about it -
> to handle it.
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Joshua:
>>
>> It seems to me that there are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
>> tasks that matter here.  They are:
>>
>> 1.  Things we do now.
>> 1a.Things that can be done now without a motion, but aren't.
>> 2.  What the makers of this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
>> 3.  What will be done as a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
>> when few of us are on the LNC.
>>
>> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm
>> getting the sense from some of the discussion that they aren't, and I will
>> try to make some suggestions on the document to bring them closer together.
>>
>>
>> My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
>> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
>> anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?
>>
>> There are things not being made available or stored in a meaningful way
>> we would like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of past
>> press releases.  What good are they doing in a file cabinet?  So what we
>> are doing now is storing them (either physically or electronically) but not
>> preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And
>> even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is one category, I
>> could expand this further) have not been done reliably - i.e. the "lost"
>> data on the websites that might be better suited on an LPedia interface.
>> And this could happen again.  This would insure a committee actually
>> provides oversight and responsibility for making sure these things get done
>> so it doesn't became an LNC discussion that is too remote to other things
>> we have to discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the
>> tangible output that members paid money for.
>>
>> ==So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
>> the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
>> from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
>> so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
>> impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
>> do that?==
>>
>> An organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and there is
>> certainly something "official" about volunteering for an actual committee
>> and having that organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can
>> scan, go off merrily into their own files, and it isn't preserved for party
>> members at large - which is something we have already committed to for
>> years with LPedia, and done it poorly.
>>
>> ==Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this
>> committee decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm
>> not sure on that.==
>>
>> It will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
>> destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will decide on best practice
>> for document preservation and best order of going about the project. It
>> will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have to worry about
>> it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into something that needs some dedicated
>> management.
>>
>> ==  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and
>> will only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
>> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might
>> impact the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy
>> Manual a bit more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
>> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave
>> the rules of order parts out of the committee description and scope).  ==
>>
>> To the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions on that.
>>
>> ==Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been
>> narrowed somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures
>> seems to have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it
>> giving the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I
>> did see it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out
>> - I might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
>> committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
>> line).  ===
>>
>> It is removed with the potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
>> first source would be to ask for voluntary donors just like volunteers.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment,
>> but I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
>> suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==
>>
>> In some areas perhaps, but I am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP
>> History enthusiast "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have
>> volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these are not people
>> volunteering to give full days for anything else.
>>
>> The website issues over two transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam
>> on Ken) were botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it
>> certainly looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet it is also
>> understandable that this coming up at a quarterly meeting is frustrating
>> amongst all the other business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and
>> puts people who want to spend the time on this and deeply care about it -
>> to handle it.
>>
>> --Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't decided how I will vote on this, and the debate here hasn't
>>> helped me.  Let me revisit some of the comments I made on the document
>>> itself, but in a more inquisitive manner, and see if I can get some light
>>> on the matter.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
>>> tasks that matter here.  They are:
>>>
>>> 1.  Things we do now.
>>> 1a.Things that can be done now without a motion, but aren't.
>>> 2.  What the makers of this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
>>> 3.  What will be done as a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
>>> when few of us are on the LNC.
>>>
>>> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm
>>> getting the sense from some of the discussion that they aren't, and I will
>>> try to make some suggestions on the document to bring them closer together.
>>>
>>>
>>> My question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
>>> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some examples:  is there
>>> anything not being stored that the makers want to see stored?
>>>
>>> So far as I know, there is nothing stopping volunteers from going into
>>> the basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I have
>>> from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did
>>> so, with another volunteer member, and there was no suggestion of
>>> impropriety.  What stops us from, without doing anything, having volunteers
>>> do that?
>>>
>>> Which brings me to another question - what, exactly, will this committee
>>> decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm not sure
>>> on that.  That is, it looks like it will not be an empowered committee, and
>>> will only make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
>>> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but, I suggest, might
>>> impact the vote threshold for this motion, as well as make the Policy
>>> Manual a bit more confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
>>> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and leave
>>> the rules of order parts out of the committee description and scope).
>>> Since it was posted, the scope of those recommendations has been narrowed
>>> somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about expenditures seems to
>>> have been different from that of several others - I didn't see it giving
>>> the committee unlimited power to commit us to expenditures, but I did see
>>> it as oddly outside the budget process, as others have pointed out - I
>>> might prefer if a budget line were created for this purpose, and the
>>> committee just incurred the costs without going to the LNC within that
>>> line).
>>>
>>> So, in sum, here is what I would like to know:
>>> What, exactly, will this motion allow to happen, that cannot happen now?
>>>
>>> Why is a committee needed for this purpose?
>>>
>>> These questions are actually closely related, because they both get at
>>> why this is a committee, rather than a group of volunteers doing work.
>>>
>>> I don't want to get into most of the other points raised at the moment,
>>> but I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible, but I
>>> suspect it is more fungible than we often think.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am at a full screen computer now, and can get better address:
>>>>
>>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical
>>>> historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.*
>>>> This is already done. Decisions are already made - either explicitly or
>>>> implicitly - about what is kept. This does not change that.
>>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
>>>> electronic records.*
>>>> This is already done. When things are made public, they are either
>>>> electronic or physical. They are already been saved.
>>>> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available
>>>> historical party documents, and transform physical documents into
>>>> electronic format toward that end.*
>>>> Historical documents are not kept for mere utility reference, but for
>>>> their historical value. We don't put out that much "publicly" and what is
>>>> put out has a historical value in saving. Though this section could be
>>>> tweaked to give greater discretion to the committee on items.
>>>> * Make a good faith effort to preserve and, and within its discretion,
>>>> to publish, all available historical party documents, and transform
>>>> physical documents into electronic format toward that end.*
>>>> I would make the point of volunteer times. Their times is their to
>>>> spend. There are volunteers waiting to be involved.  Their time is not
>>>> fungible, people get involved in what they are passionate about.
>>>>
>>>> - Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alicia,
>>>>>
>>>>> First I would ask if there is language you could suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>> As in the "all" - it is what we are doing now.  Nothing is being
>>>>> added.  All records that are public records.
>>>>>
>>>>> The committee is tasked with a good faith effort to publish them yes.
>>>>> Nearly everything being referred to will have been published previously -
>>>>> this is making the permanent archive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Top level history is subjective.  The Wiki now is far from only top
>>>>> level- histories of some county parties are preserved if someone was
>>>>> interested in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is useful is very much subjective.  To those very interested in
>>>>> having a good complete record of our history, they are all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Volunteer time is like earmarked money. If a volunteer wants to give
>>>>> it- that is their choice, not ours on what we deem fruitful.  I already
>>>>> know volunteers willing to be dedicated. There is a core of people
>>>>> interested in historical matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> A treasure trove of records exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the scope of this committee, as proposed, is so broad that
>>>>>> it's a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I really being asked to be partially responsible for preserving ALL
>>>>>> physical historic information (in #1), and ALL public electronic records
>>>>>> (in #2)?  And the committee is additionally tasked with publishing ALL
>>>>>> historical documents (in #4)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "All" is an awfully large amount of information, and it means there
>>>>>> would never be anything deemed inappropriate for inclusion because it says
>>>>>> "all".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought this was just going to be some top-level history like
>>>>>> whatever is on the wiki right now, but this proposal is a massive expansion
>>>>>> in scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some historical documents are useful to keep around for reference.
>>>>>> Others just aren't, so why spend time preserving ALL of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we going to spend our limited volunteer time and effort
>>>>>> documenting the past, or are we going to instead focus on how to make our
>>>>>> future efforts have more real-world results?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is a motion seeking a sponsor and co-sponsors, to
>>>>>> create the Historic Preservation Committee, tasked with preserving and
>>>>>> publishing all historical documents of the Party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the
>>>>>> Policy Manual, which reads (column name in italics): **(Committee
>>>>>> name)* Historic Preservation Committee
>>>>>> *(Size)* Two (2) LNC Members or Alternates, plus up to five (5)
>>>>>> non-LNC members.
>>>>>> *(Member Selection)* LNC Members or Alternates selected by LNC.
>>>>>> Non-LNC members selected by the committee, which shall be accepted unless
>>>>>> objected to by a majority of the LNC within 14 days of notification.
>>>>>> *(Chair Selection)* * Committee Selected
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual,
>>>>>> which reads: *x) Historic Preservation Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is to preserve
>>>>>> historical documents of the party.  To that end, the committee shall:
>>>>>> 1. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all
>>>>>> physical historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.
>>>>>> Any costs for document storage shall be presented to the LNC and shall be
>>>>>> accepted unless objected to by the majority of the entire LNC within 14
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>> 2. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
>>>>>> electronic records.
>>>>>> 3. With the assistance of the IT Committee and staff, provide and
>>>>>> maintain a permanent public document archive in the form of a
>>>>>> publicly-viewable website which is separate from the Party’s primary
>>>>>> website.
>>>>>> 4. Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all historical
>>>>>> documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format toward
>>>>>> that end.
>>>>>> 5. Vote to recommend the destruction of any original document, or
>>>>>> document for which no other copy is available. No such document shall be
>>>>>> destroyed without the consent of the LNC, as outlined in Section 2.07(x).
>>>>>> 6. At each LNC meeting, present a summary of physical document
>>>>>> preservation mechanisms currently being utilized, and the number of
>>>>>> documents preserved in electronic format.
>>>>>> 7. Ensure that any document that would qualify for discussion under
>>>>>> the rules of executive session for the LNC, as outlined under Section
>>>>>> 1.02(5), remains private until such time that the Executive Committee, or
>>>>>> the entire LNC, meeting in executive session, votes in the affirmative to
>>>>>> make that information public.
>>>>>> 8. Within one business day, inform the LNC of any committee
>>>>>> appointments.
>>>>>> 9. Publicly announce and permit a public audience for all meetings,
>>>>>> other than those meetings held for the explicit purpose of discussing
>>>>>> historic items that would qualify for Executive Session.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing listed in the responsibilities, powers, or scope of this
>>>>>> Committee shall be construed to prevent or circumvent the normal operation
>>>>>> of the Party’s main website or to interfere in the duties of the Secretary
>>>>>> as mandated by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.07 of the Policy Manual,
>>>>>> which reads: *(x) All agendas, public meeting minutes, and public
>>>>>> records of the Party shall be made available to the Historic Preservation
>>>>>> Committee.  No data shall be deleted or destroyed without a vote in the
>>>>>> affirmative by no less than two-thirds of the entire LNC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170110/4ca600a8/attachment-0002.html>