[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-06: Move Archive Records to CO

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I wanted to record this here : Ed Marsh reports having email issues and
sent this email to the list separately (see attached image)



On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes
>
> On Mar 29, 2017 8:34 PM, "Brett Bittner" <brett.bittner at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I vote Aye on email ballot 2017-06.
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
>>
>> On Mar 29, 2017 20:31, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To supplement the other update and relevant to this motion: I now have
>>> two volunteers willing to dedicate an entire week block of time if the
>>> records are in the Denver area to work on the project.  This is with
>>> minimal word of mouth from person(s) who read the LNC list.  I believe I
>>> would get several regular crews.  LPCO already has a commitment to its
>>> history (unfortunately some records list due to past neglect prior to my
>>> time and were soiled by vermin).  I am a prolific volunteer recruiter when
>>> I need them.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joshua, any historical work with a budget is going to require
>>>> prioritization which requires knowing what we have.  If it were just the
>>>> records in the basement, that would not be an issue (another volunteer I
>>>> found just spent two more days there - total volunteer time on the project
>>>> now totals likely over a 100 hours between inventory work and LPedia
>>>> database fix issues - IOW significant volunteer has already been expended -
>>>> we have been effective).  It is the storage facility records that are the
>>>> issue.  If they remain there, one possible avenue to keep staff uninvolved
>>>> as much as possible is to grant me the key to designate to a certain core
>>>> group of volunteers in the area to be determined.  I am confident that
>>>> whatever is decided, we will make the most effective, cheapest, least
>>>> intrusive means possible.  As I said, I will have to spend vacation time in
>>>> VA this summer if they are not moved.  I do not require any staff
>>>> oversight, but that money could go to the Party rather than Southwest and
>>>> Marriot.
>>>>
>>>> And no, this year that expense will not grow (and next year is a
>>>> different budget discussion).  I am convinced it is too high by at least
>>>> $1000 (unless salary is way more than I figure in my head - which of course
>>>> would be a confidential discussion).  And I want to remind everyone that I
>>>> already raised nearly $1200 and promised an additional $1500 if the move
>>>> was approved.  So if I am right (and I am pretty convinced I am) that the
>>>> $9000 figure is correct, taking away the pledge and the amount raised, we
>>>> are at $6800.  Which is only $1800 more than the LNC expected already to
>>>> come out of the budget (and most certainly money will be raised toward
>>>> that) in additional to the free professional labor.  Putting aside that
>>>> this is my project and I have a bias, we need to be supporting these
>>>> volunteer initiative small projects.  I could wax long about that, but I
>>>> will save it to not bore everyone to death with this post.  But you are
>>>> right, we have spent more discussing a relatively trivial amount with a
>>>> potential result of volunteered time, product, and good will way beyond the
>>>> amount.  For once, I am nearly talked out - miracle of miracle.  I have
>>>> never tried so hard to give away so many hours of my professional time over
>>>> several years.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is much btw that falls in some third category. I do
>>>> think that is somewhat of a false premise.  I broadly went through records
>>>> in the facility and it was not that category (membership slips should be
>>>> scanned IMHO - whether they are published is a different decision).  There
>>>> are filing cabinets in the basement which do, but which have always been
>>>> outside our scope.
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that it seems there is a critique that the
>>>> original scanning budget has not been spent - it seems my prudence and
>>>> caution is being used as a point of suspicion rather than good stewardship
>>>> which rather reminds me of government budgeting.  I could have spent it in
>>>> a week.  I am determined to squeeze it for every penny but it seems that
>>>> this suggestion would have had a lot less discussion if I were
>>>> irresponsible.  I did get some advice to just spent it right away being
>>>> cautioned about this very thing.  I don't operate that way.  I treat OPM
>>>> (other people's money) as sacred.  I have spent my own money on misc items
>>>> rather than nickel or diming this.  Volunteers have spent days from their
>>>> vacation time - neither of them lived by HQ, one was further away in VA and
>>>> the other was all the way from AZ.
>>>>
>>>> PS:  I have a volunteer willing to commit a full week of time to
>>>> assisting with these records,, if they are moved to CO.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, let me say this:  the debate on this motion has entirely changed
>>>> my view on the questions involved.  One thing I am gleaning from the
>>>> debate, though, is that different people are talking about entirely
>>>> different issues and concerns, and several of those issues are not
>>>> well-framed enough to be answered in a yes/no manner.  For a while, I
>>>> thought the debate was largely off-track because it was getting into the
>>>> weeds, but now I realize that some of those weeds are LNC concerns, and
>>>> others, despite ideally not being LNC concerns, have become such due to a
>>>> lack of other governance mechanisms.  I will attempt here to lay out what I
>>>> see as the issues being discussed - largely independently - and suggest
>>>> that the question be narrowed.
>>>>
>>>> *The Stuff*
>>>>
>>>> We have piles of stuff, is what I'm gathering.  We passed a motion a
>>>> while ago, creating the Historical Committee, which I think was implicitly
>>>> premised on the idea that the stuff falls into two groups:  garbage, and
>>>> things we wish to preserve for historical value.  At least, that was my
>>>> implicit premise.  Now we're finding, though, that there's a third group:
>>>> things we wish to preserve for legal/business purposes.  This suggests to
>>>> me that our handling of the previous motion might not have been sufficient
>>>> because of this faulty premise.  So we're left with a broad question:  how
>>>> to handle all this stuff.  I think a lot of us thought our previous motion
>>>> would take care of that, but perhaps it will not if this third category
>>>> exists.
>>>>
>>>> *Financial Considerations*
>>>>
>>>> This is what I originally thought this motion was all about - spending
>>>> money.  In particular, it seems to me that this motion is based on the idea
>>>> that the money we previously allocated was not sufficient.  This gives me
>>>> independent concerns:  if the expected cost of a project doubles in a
>>>> matter of weeks, experience shows us that it is likely to continue rising.
>>>> I also would like to know how we learned this - since none of the
>>>> originally allocated money has been spent, and the proposed increase is
>>>> exactly the amount allocated, why can't the allocated money be spent to do
>>>> this?  While much discussion has been about the proposed object, the motion
>>>> seems to me only to authorize money, and to take for granted that the
>>>> moving can be done by staff as long as the money is there.
>>>>
>>>> Now, assuming there's some other use for the original $5k, I don't
>>>> think what Wes has told us suggests that we can do this project for either
>>>> $5k or $10k.  I think it suggests that the cost of the project is (at
>>>> least) $10k, once staff time is included, as it should be.  A functionally
>>>> allocated budget would have made this clear, whereas with our current
>>>> budgeting procedures it has to come out in discussion and remain a little
>>>> fuzzy, but that's how I'm reading it.  We can spend the additional $5k in
>>>> cash, or we can spend it in lost staff time.  That brings up a new
>>>> question, then - since we approved the project at $5k, do we still think it
>>>> is worth doing at $10k?  I think that's perfectly well-framed to be
>>>> answered with a yes/no decision.  However, what is less clear is what
>>>> happens if we say no.  One option is that things would remain at status
>>>> quo, and we'd continue paying for storage space.  Another is to throw
>>>> everything out.  There are probably other options, too.
>>>>
>>>> *The Value of Things in Storage*
>>>>
>>>> Focusing for a moment on the items of business/legal significance, I
>>>> think that, if a clean-up project does not proceed, they might as well be
>>>> in the trash.  It is extremely unlikely that things can be found when
>>>> needed, and it would be healthier, when such a concern comes up, to be able
>>>> to say cheerfully "yep, it's gone," than to have a vague notion that it may
>>>> exist in a large pile of stuff, buried under furniture.
>>>>
>>>> Turning to the historical items, I confess to being less interested in
>>>> these than others are, but I take the result of the vote to suggest that we
>>>> find it important, and so we're unlikely to think they're worth preserving
>>>> at $5k, but worth throwing out if it would cost $10k.  In the grand scheme
>>>> of things, $5k is not much money, and it's believed that there are
>>>> donations available to support much of this.  In my mind, though, such
>>>> donations are currently speculative - and I can speculate that costs will
>>>> continue rising.  So let's ignore both speculations and assume we'll be
>>>> spending the money out of what's currently in our budget - it's still
>>>> rather small and not worth much of the time spent discussing it.  Heck,
>>>> it's the amount we let the chair spend freely - which raises one possible
>>>> solution.  More generally, it raises the idea that we should be freer with
>>>> allocating budgets to projects without involving ourselves in the questions
>>>> of how the money is spent.  Personally, I find it baffling that we turn
>>>> over the vast majority of our budget to staff, yet insist on weird control
>>>> mechanisms for small portions - putting the most control on money to be
>>>> spent by committees, largely populated by board members.  I have no idea
>>>> why we single out budget access, for instance, for EC control (why not, at
>>>> least, control by the people directing ballot access?), but leave half the
>>>> budget in Compensation.  But then, I don't understand many things about the
>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> *Budgetary Impact*
>>>>
>>>> That said, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, when
>>>> donations are available for a given project, it is not always clear if they
>>>> will increase total revenue, or simply be taken out of other giving the
>>>> same people might otherwise have planned.  I suspect the answer is
>>>> somewhere in the middle - a $10k project, fully funded by donations, will
>>>> not cost us $10k, but also will not cost us $0, all things considered.
>>>>
>>>> *Why is There a Pile of Stuff?*
>>>>
>>>> I think Wes has well explained this one - people are afraid to throw
>>>> things out.  A few years ago, I was elected Secretary of my fire
>>>> department.  I went through old minutes and found that all correspondence
>>>> was there - i.e. Christmas cards, invitations to Climb for Life, for
>>>> decades.  This doesn't make it particularly easy to do the project I was
>>>> engaged in - no one had kept records of standing rules, so I was attempting
>>>> to reconstruct them from old minutes.  (A fun story for anyone who says "I
>>>> don't see what's wrong with including discussion in the minutes" or who
>>>> fails to see why it is important to record the actual language of the
>>>> motion.)  Anyway, with a custom going back decades, it's hard to be the one
>>>> who decides to break it.  The solution is a document retention policy,
>>>> which we should come up with.  I will move in Pittsburgh that we appoint a
>>>> committee to recommend one.
>>>>
>>>> *How to Throw Things Out*
>>>>
>>>> Although we have agreed that the LNC will make this decision, based on
>>>> this discussion, I am questioning the wisdom of that move.  I think if a
>>>> committee is going through this material, and if we have adopted such a
>>>> policy, that committee should be free to throw things out within that
>>>> policy.  Currently, as the Secretary notes, making these calls would take a
>>>> good amount of expertise with the specifics of the materials.  With a
>>>> document retention plan in place, I don't think it will.  I think it would
>>>> be crazy for the LNC to make document by document decisions, personally.
>>>> Let's set some rules about what sorts of things we want to keep, and then
>>>> let volunteers have at it.
>>>>
>>>> *Purpose of Historical Committee*
>>>>
>>>> As the Secretary notes, we appointed a historical committee, not a
>>>> clean-up committee.  If it turns out that cleaning up is necessary before
>>>> the historical work can be done, we need to decide if the historical
>>>> committee is the right committee for that purpose, or if something else
>>>> needs to be done first.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alicia,
>>>>
>>>> My recommendations will be primarily about duplicates.  I do believe I
>>>> am experienced enough to determine a duplicate.  I also undertook a similar
>>>> (obviously smaller scale but in principle the same) project already in
>>>> Colorado (http://www.lpcolorado.org/archives).
>>>>
>>>> The rest would be done via inventory and in consultation with more
>>>> experienced Party members.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have experience in years, but I have experience in diving in
>>>> more deeply than persons with twenty years of experience have done.
>>>> Further CO has a wide breath of available persons to volunteer.
>>>>
>>>> Right  now there is no danger of anyone's experience because it simply
>>>> isn't being done, and unless another person with the passion I have for the
>>>> topic appears, it likely will not in any forseeable future.  It hasn't so
>>>> far.
>>>>
>>>> I respectfully submit that making recommendations is not complicated
>>>> and I believe I have proven my understanding on historical artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Starchild,
>>>>
>>>> My concerns are not about the city in which the analysis is done, but
>>>> about the depth of experience of the person analyzing the contents in order
>>>> to characterize them for the decision maker(s).
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alicia,
>>>>
>>>> If there were an amendment or second motion that none of the materials
>>>> to be sent to Colorado be discarded without an elected or appointed member
>>>> of the party leadership gives the okay, would that  allay your concerns? Or
>>>> perhaps a motion/amendment saying certain categories of things can't be
>>>> discarded, period? Having seen the kind of stuff that's sometimes been left
>>>> behind and thrown away after LP conventions – current outreach materials,
>>>> unused office supplies, etc. – not to mention stuff being deleted from our
>>>> website, old meeting minutes and other important records apparently having
>>>> been thrown out by people at various times, etc., I share your concern that
>>>> things might get thrown out which would better be saved.
>>>>
>>>> Where we may possibly see things differently is that I don't perceive
>>>> there being a greater risk of this occurring in Colorado than in
>>>> Alexandria. The discarding of minutes and other important past materials
>>>> presumably took place in the D.C. area. More recently, Wes mentioned in a
>>>> recent message that he discarded some stuff, and although I trust there
>>>> were no minutes among those materials, there wasn't a lot of detail
>>>> provided about precisely what they *did* include, and I can't help
>>>> wondering whether anything was discarded that I personally might have kept.
>>>> I might have the same concern upon hearing of stuff discarded in Colorado,
>>>> of course, but I wouldn't be any *more* concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>                                 ((( starchild )))
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>                               (415) 625-FREE
>>>>                                 @StarchildSF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The discussion on this thread paints the motion in a very different
>>>> light for me.  I want to take a step back and put this in context.
>>>>
>>>> The motion adopted by email ballot to create this committee included
>>>> the following scope description:
>>>>
>>>> "The LNC establishes a Historic Preservation Committee to help preserve
>>>> and publish historical documents of the party and to manage LPedia."
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to preserve and publish things of historical value.
>>>>
>>>> This motion suggests that the newly-requested funds will be used:
>>>>
>>>> "to budget an additional $5,000 (budget line 90) to relocate the
>>>>
>>>> historical records in the Duke Street basement and in the off-site
>>>>
>>>> storage facility to a location in Colorado..."
>>>>
>>>> That to me sounds like the materials in question are of historical
>>>> value, and it thus warrants the expenditure to preserve them.
>>>>
>>>> What we're learning, though, is that possibly the vast majority of this
>>>> material is trash, and we're paying thousands of dollars to ship trash to
>>>> Colorado to be thrown away there.
>>>>
>>>> This is really more of a document destruction project than a historical
>>>> preservation project, though along the way it will likely find a few
>>>> historical documents worth preserving.
>>>>
>>>> We created a Historic Perservation Committee, rather than a Basement
>>>> Cleanout Committee, and they're very different tasks.
>>>>
>>>> I would be comfortable with volunteers in Colorado taking things deemed
>>>> to have historic value and scanning them for preservation, or making them
>>>> available for silent auction fundraising, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I am not comfortable with volunteers in Colorado who have no experience
>>>> in operations of our headquarters essentially making decisions about what
>>>> documents get thrown away.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I spent a day in the Watergate dungeon (I think it was in
>>>> the fall of 2011) digging through that material is because I was looking
>>>> for some records that should have been preserved in perpetuity, but *someone
>>>> who didn't understand their importance apparently threw them out*.
>>>> They actually had very high value for legal reasons.
>>>>
>>>> As pretty as it sounds to have a team of volunteers in the birthplace
>>>> of the LP building historical archives, a person's Colorado residence
>>>> doesn't grant them magical knowledge of what business records ought to be
>>>> kept and which ones ought to be thrown away.
>>>>
>>>> I realize that you say that the LNC will ultimately decide which things
>>>> get tossed, but the quality of the LNC's decision depends heavily on the
>>>> description of the records we are given.  If a volunteer describes to us
>>>> that a box contains miscellaneous receipts, it's one thing if it's
>>>> 15-year-old receipts for office supplies that have long since been used up,
>>>> but it's another if the receipts are for equipment still in use today and
>>>> maybe still under warranty.  If a volunteer describes to us that a box
>>>> contains old email correspondence with a state chair, it's one thing if the
>>>> conversation was, "I look forward to seeing you at the convention", but
>>>> it's another thing if the conversation was relaying facts about a situation
>>>> that is the subject of a lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> If the person looking at the records doesn't really understand the
>>>> context of the records, how can they give us the key information we need to
>>>> make an informed decision about which ones to throw away?
>>>>
>>>> This is not a project that should be undertaken by people with no
>>>> understanding of our party operations.
>>>>
>>>> There may also be old employment records with sensitive personnel
>>>> information, social security numbers, etc., and those shouldn't just be
>>>> passed around among random volunteers.
>>>>
>>>> I have no objection to paying for the committee chair to make a trip to
>>>> the storage facility, spend a few days sorting through it to find items of
>>>> historical value, and then shipping those 10 boxes to Colorado for further
>>>> processing.  That is within the function of a Historic Preservation
>>>> Committee.
>>>>
>>>> I do have objection to shipping our trash-mixed-with-important-records
>>>> across the country for people who don't understand what is valuable and
>>>> what isn't to give us vague descriptions which will be the basis of
>>>> uninformed decisions for destroying our records.  This document destruction
>>>> task is not what I had in mind when the Historic Preservation Committee was
>>>> created.
>>>>
>>>> For several years our outside auditors have been urging us to adopt
>>>> document retention policies (and also whistleblower policies, but that's
>>>> another subject).  I think it was two terms ago near the end of that term
>>>> that the Audit Committee proposed some starter language to try to get the
>>>> ball rolling, but the LNC has not yet implemented anything.
>>>>
>>>> At minimum we need to establish how long certain records are to be kept
>>>> such as employment records, financial records, membership certifications,
>>>> and other categories.  These can be important to keep for legal reasons,
>>>> for FEC compliance, etc.  Even after we make those policy decisions, I
>>>> think the document maintenance has to be done by knowledgeable insiders
>>>> rather than miscellaneous volunteers.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>
>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>
>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170401/55e58747/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2017-04-01 at 4.57.32 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44150 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170401/55e58747/attachment-0002.png>