[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-06: Move Archive Records to CO
Alicia Mattson
agmattson at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 00:24:14 EDT 2017
Ed's message did make it to the list. I responded to it on March 31
(though looking back at that message now I see that I only did a "reply"
rather than a "reply all" so the rest of you didn't see it), and he again
confirmed to me off-list that he intended to vote yes on both email ballots
-06 and -07, so that's what I have recorded.
-Alicia
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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*
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170403/5e966a51/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list