[Lnc-business] Policy citations for our review
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Feb 24 17:34:04 EST 2018
Since the goal was to open up to everyone and a cost was discussed to
defray the Party’s yearly cost therecead ZERO inappropriateness in making
the request.
I use the word sinister because you have quite a talent at finding hidden
meanings in so many things.
Joshua makes a statement and you assume he was making a dig st you.
Nick posts an email from 2015 and you think it’s about you.
I invite people to call me to be personae and you turn it into something to
be wary off and hypocritical.
I offer to volunteer and that is “odd” and “disturbing”
I look forward to how you will turn this into something else. It’s been
quite amazing. And by amazing I mean singularly unpleasant.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:05 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> Caryn Ann, why do you keep using words like sinister? I certainly
> didn't.
>
> I wrote: "It's inappropriate to let caucuses avail themselves of items
> paid for by the LP members."
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
>
> On 2018-02-24 13:45, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > And here we go again. I asked. There is nothing sinister in asking
> > and a resource that sits unused could be made available to everyone.
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:56 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
> > <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Caryn Ann, you wrote:
> > The deciding factor there was our contractual agreement with Adobe
> > that
> > you must be present to administer all meetings. Libertarians
> > keep
> > contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> > amenable
> > in
> > letting other groups use it and making that widely known until
> > that
> > came up. You could not be expected to attend all those
> > meetings. I
> > think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for and that
> > there
> > are
> > much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that could be
> > used by
> > more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When adobe
> > renewal
> > comes
> > up, there are far better options that don't require reliance
> > on
> > one
> > person.
> > -------------
> > Was the possibility of caucuses using the Adobe platform, which is
> > contracted with the LP, ever discussed by this board? This is
> > another
> > instance where party assets are okd for use, and this board should
> > have
> > been made aware. So, I'm asking, was this discussed by the LNC?
> > Also, for the record: The LPCaucus would have soundly rejected
> > any
> > offer from LP national to use LP assets in this manner. (If such
> > an
> > offer had been made) Principles matter, we'd find it wrong to
> > compromise
> > our principals, even to benefit our group. The LPC doesn't
> > approve
> > of
> > frivolous use of LP assets. It doesn't matter if there's an
> > ill-advised
> > contract and an item isn't used much. It's inappropriate to let
> > caucuses avail themselves of items paid for by the LP members.
> > ---
> > Elizabeth Van Horn
> > On 2018-02-24 04:56, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > > ==Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff to provide to
> > Ms.
> > > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe Connect
> > account
> > > so
> > > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their caucus
> > meeting.
> > > Staff
> > > then sent me a request to remind them of the login
> > information.
> > > We
> > > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the use of
> > party
> > > assets
> > > by
> > > caucuses, however I objected based on the recurring theme
> > of
> > the
> > > other
> > > LNC policies, and this offer was not being extended to all
> > > caucuses,
> > > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing that the
> > Radical
> > > Caucus would find another meeting option.===
> > > The deciding factor there was our contractual agreement with
> > Adobe
> > > that
> > > you must be present to administer all meetings. Libertarians
> > keep
> > > contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> > amenable
> > in
> > > letting other groups use it and making that widely known
> > until
> > that
> > > came up. You could not be expected to attend all those
> > meetings. I
> > > think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for and that
> > there
> > > are
> > > much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that could be
> > used by
> > > more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When adobe
> > renewal
> > > comes
> > > up, there are far better options that don't require reliance
> > on
> > one
> > > person.
> > > ==Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions==
> > > This is speaking about national party conventions and
> > delegates.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and Expense
> > > Reimbursements==
> > > == NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for
> > "officers".===
> > > That is a good point and a very good catch but in context it
> > > certainly
> > > is in the context of the reality that officers will have to
> > > regularly
> > > do this and there was to be no question that it could be
> > reimbursed.
> > > It does not say or imply that others could not be only that
> > such was
> > > not an expected guarantee. The main take away here is Party
> > related
> > > activities.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party Reporting==
> > > And the treasurer had all this noted for the next report
> > which
> > is
> > > when
> > > it would have been included as per this section.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on Party
> > Support for
> > > Public
> > > Office==
> > > Not running for public office.
> > > ==Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on Party
> > Support
> > for
> > > Party
> > > Office
> > > "Party resources shall not be used to provide information
> > or
> > > services
> > > for any candidate for party office unless:
> > > * such information or services are available and
> > announced
> > on
> > > an
> > > equal basis to all Libertarians who have DECLARED they
> > are
> > > seeking
> > > that office, or=== [emphasis added]
> > > I have not declared and this section obviously again means
> > > information
> > > and services related to that campaign. Or does that mean you
> > can no
> > > longer ask for services or information that have nothing to
> > do
> > with
> > > campaigning unless it is offered to me (if I declared)? Of
> > course
> > > not. This is about providing support for campaigns for
> > DECLARED
> > > Party
> > > candidates. I was neither campaigning nor was I declared.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate Relationships
> > > "Special agreements with states require the approval of
> > the
> > > LNC."==
> > > I also have no idea what this means, but I cannot conceive of
> > any
> > > intent in which it would apply here.
> > > No policies were violated. You can have your opinion that
> > wrong
> > > discretion was used and that is fair. And subjective. I
> > followed
> > > the
> > > rules and directions and got the appropriate approvals.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Alicia Mattson
> > > <[1][2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Below I'm going to quote a number of LNC policies that
> > we
> > > should
> > > keep
> > > in mind for evaluating the subject of the day.
> > > There is a large body of LNC policy establishing a
> > framework of
> > > keeping
> > > things on an even playing field. Some of the policies
> > were
> > > specifically written after real-life experience with a
> > > situation
> > > that
> > > generated objections.
> > > Our policies require fairness regarding use of party
> > assets by
> > > pre-nomination candidates for public office, or for
> > internal
> > > party
> > > office. Our policies forbid giving some national
> > convention
> > > delegates
> > > financial advantages over others. Our policies require
> > that
> > > "special"
> > > agreements with affiliates (agreements not offered to
> > all)
> > > require LNC
> > > approval. Our policies require advance approval of
> > related
> > > party
> > > transactions and then various financial disclosures
> > beyond
> > just
> > > FEC
> > > reporting.
> > > Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff to
> > provide
> > to
> > > Ms.
> > > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe Connect
> > > account
> > > so
> > > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their caucus
> > meeting.
> > > Staff
> > > then sent me a request to remind them of the login
> > information.
> > > We
> > > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the use of
> > party
> > > assets by
> > > caucuses, however I objected based on the recurring
> > theme
> > of
> > > the
> > > other
> > > LNC policies, and this offer was not being extended to
> > all
> > > caucuses,
> > > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing that
> > the
> > > Radical
> > > Caucus would find another meeting option.
> > > I think the current situation may run afoul of some of
> > our
> > > policies
> > > below, but we shouldn't have to write a policy to
> > anticipate
> > > every
> > > potential idea that might arise. There's enough
> > collective
> > > experience
> > > on this board that good judgment should be able to spot
> > the bad
> > > optics
> > > here.
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions
> > > "The Party shall not directly or indirectly compensate
> > or
> > > otherwise
> > > underwrite or subsidize the convention travel, lodging
> > > (excepting
> > > room
> > > upgrades which the Party received at no cost),
> > entertainment
> > > costs or
> > > speaker fees/honorariums of any Convention delegates.
> > This
> > > policy
> > > shall
> > > not prohibit the Party from underwriting organized
> > convention
> > > events
> > > offered to all donors of a particular level. Nor shall
> > it
> > > prohibit
> > > delegates from receiving complementary meals or access
> > to
> > > convention
> > > events in rough proportion to their level of volunteer
> > work.
> > > All
> > > volunteer compensation must be approved by the
> > Convention
> > > Oversight
> > > Committee, and contemporaneously published when actual
> > > compensation is
> > > received."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and Expense
> > > Reimbursements
> > > "... Travel expenses incurred by officers for the
> > explicit
> > > purpose of
> > > conducting Party business (excluding those incurred for
> > the
> > > purpose of
> > > attending LNC meetings) may be reimbursed. Business
> > travel
> > > expenses
> > > not pre-authorized by the LNC must be deemed necessary
> > and
> > > approved in
> > > writing by the Chair to qualify for reimbursement. All
> > travel
> > > expense
> > > reports are to be audited by the Treasurer, and approved
> > by the
> > > Treasurer and the Chair."
> > > NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for "officers".
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party Reporting
> > > "For each related party engaging in one or more
> > financial
> > > transactions
> > > with the Party, all interim financial statements shall
> > include
> > > a
> > > report
> > > of the status, nature and current and year-to-date
> > amounts
> > with
> > > respect
> > > to such transactions, including contributions, expenses,
> > loans,
> > > commitments, guarantees or any other transaction."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.04.3 : Contracts and Contract
> > Approval
> > > "All contracts or modifications thereto shall be in
> > writing and
> > > shall
> > > document the nature of the products or services to be
> > provided
> > > and the
> > > terms and conditions with respect to the amount of
> > > compensation/reimbursement or other consideration to be
> > paid.
> > > ...
> > > No
> > > agreement involving a financial transaction with a
> > related
> > > party
> > > shall
> > > be executed unless first approved by the LNC. Any such
> > > agreement
> > > shall
> > > be disclosed in a conflict of interest statement."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on Party
> > Support
> > > for
> > > Public
> > > Office
> > > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
> > information
> > or
> > > services
> > > for any candidate for public office prior to the
> > nomination
> > > unless:
> > > * such information or services are available and
> > announced on
> > > an
> > > equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared
> > they
> > are
> > > seeking
> > > that nomination,
> > > * such information or services are generally available
> > and
> > > announced
> > > to all party members, or
> > > * the service or candidate has been approved by the
> > state
> > > chair."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on Party
> > Support
> > > for
> > > Party
> > > Office
> > > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
> > information
> > or
> > > services
> > > for any candidate for party office unless:
> > > * such information or services are available and
> > announced on
> > > an
> > > equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared
> > they
> > are
> > > seeking
> > > that office, or
> > > * such information or services are generally available
> > and
> > > announced
> > > to all party members."
> > > Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate Relationships
> > > "Special agreements with states require the approval of
> > the
> > > LNC."
> > > NOTE: I am not certain the exact motivation for adding
> > this
> > > language,
> > > but it may have been one of the following. It could
> > have
> > been
> > > during
> > > Project Archimedes in which states with partisan voter
> > > registration
> > > were targeted for membership drives because there
> > already
> > > existed
> > > a
> > > list of people in that state who are philosophically
> > aligned
> > > with
> > > the
> > > party. It could have been a situation during the
> > Unified
> > > Membership
> > > Program in which an affiliate combined state-specific
> > mailings
> > > with LP
> > > News. It didn't cost the LNC additional expense. The
> > > affiliate
> > > paid
> > > the marginal cost of the extra postage, and the LNC paid
> > the
> > > same
> > > postage they would have otherwise incurred for LP News.
> > > -Alicia
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > > 1. mailto:[3]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> > 2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
Since the goal was to open up to everyone and a cost was discussed to
defray the Party’s yearly cost therecead ZERO inappropriateness in
making the request.
I use the word sinister because you have quite a talent at finding
hidden meanings in so many things.
Joshua makes a statement and you assume he was making a dig st you.
Nick posts an email from 2015 and you think it’s about you.
I invite people to call me to be personae and you turn it into
something to be wary off and hypocritical.
I offer to volunteer and that is “odd” and “disturbing”
I look forward to how you will turn this into something else. It’s
been quite amazing. And by amazing I mean singularly unpleasant.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:05 PM Elizabeth Van Horn
<[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann, why do you keep using words like sinister? I certainly
didn't.
I wrote: "It's inappropriate to let caucuses avail themselves of
items
paid for by the LP members."
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-02-24 13:45, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> And here we go again. I asked. There is nothing sinister in
asking
> and a resource that sits unused could be made available to
everyone.
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:56 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
> <[1][2]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann, you wrote:
> The deciding factor there was our contractual agreement with
Adobe
> that
> you must be present to administer all meetings.
Libertarians
> keep
> contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> amenable
> in
> letting other groups use it and making that widely known
until
> that
> came up. You could not be expected to attend all those
> meetings. I
> think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for and
that
> there
> are
> much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that could
be
> used by
> more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When adobe
> renewal
> comes
> up, there are far better options that don't require
reliance
> on
> one
> person.
> -------------
> Was the possibility of caucuses using the Adobe platform,
which is
> contracted with the LP, ever discussed by this board? This
is
> another
> instance where party assets are okd for use, and this board
should
> have
> been made aware. So, I'm asking, was this discussed by the
LNC?
> Also, for the record: The LPCaucus would have soundly
rejected
> any
> offer from LP national to use LP assets in this manner. (If
such
> an
> offer had been made) Principles matter, we'd find it wrong to
> compromise
> our principals, even to benefit our group. The LPC doesn't
> approve
> of
> frivolous use of LP assets. It doesn't matter if there's an
> ill-advised
> contract and an item isn't used much. It's inappropriate to
let
> caucuses avail themselves of items paid for by the LP
members.
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> On 2018-02-24 04:56, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > ==Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff to
provide to
> Ms.
> > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe
Connect
> account
> > so
> > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their caucus
> meeting.
> > Staff
> > then sent me a request to remind them of the login
> information.
> > We
> > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the use
of
> party
> > assets
> > by
> > caucuses, however I objected based on the recurring
theme
> of
> the
> > other
> > LNC policies, and this offer was not being extended
to all
> > caucuses,
> > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing that
the
> Radical
> > Caucus would find another meeting option.===
> > The deciding factor there was our contractual agreement
with
> Adobe
> > that
> > you must be present to administer all meetings.
Libertarians
> keep
> > contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> amenable
> in
> > letting other groups use it and making that widely known
> until
> that
> > came up. You could not be expected to attend all those
> meetings. I
> > think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for and
that
> there
> > are
> > much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that
could be
> used by
> > more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When adobe
> renewal
> > comes
> > up, there are far better options that don't require
reliance
> on
> one
> > person.
> > ==Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions==
> > This is speaking about national party conventions and
> delegates.
> > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and
Expense
> > Reimbursements==
> > == NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for
> "officers".===
> > That is a good point and a very good catch but in
context it
> > certainly
> > is in the context of the reality that officers will have
to
> > regularly
> > do this and there was to be no question that it could be
> reimbursed.
> > It does not say or imply that others could not be only
that
> such was
> > not an expected guarantee. The main take away here is
Party
> related
> > activities.
> > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party
Reporting==
> > And the treasurer had all this noted for the next report
> which
> is
> > when
> > it would have been included as per this section.
> > == Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on Party
> Support for
> > Public
> > Office==
> > Not running for public office.
> > ==Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on Party
> Support
> for
> > Party
> > Office
> > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
information
> or
> > services
> > for any candidate for party office unless:
> > * such information or services are available and
> announced
> on
> > an
> > equal basis to all Libertarians who have DECLARED
they
> are
> > seeking
> > that office, or=== [emphasis added]
> > I have not declared and this section obviously again
means
> > information
> > and services related to that campaign. Or does that
mean you
> can no
> > longer ask for services or information that have nothing
to
> do
> with
> > campaigning unless it is offered to me (if I declared)?
Of
> course
> > not. This is about providing support for campaigns for
> DECLARED
> > Party
> > candidates. I was neither campaigning nor was I
declared.
> > == Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate
Relationships
> > "Special agreements with states require the approval
of
> the
> > LNC."==
> > I also have no idea what this means, but I cannot
conceive of
> any
> > intent in which it would apply here.
> > No policies were violated. You can have your opinion
that
> wrong
> > discretion was used and that is fair. And subjective.
I
> followed
> > the
> > rules and directions and got the appropriate approvals.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Alicia Mattson
> > <[1][2][3]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Below I'm going to quote a number of LNC policies
that
> we
> > should
> > keep
> > in mind for evaluating the subject of the day.
> > There is a large body of LNC policy establishing a
> framework of
> > keeping
> > things on an even playing field. Some of the
policies
> were
> > specifically written after real-life experience
with a
> > situation
> > that
> > generated objections.
> > Our policies require fairness regarding use of
party
> assets by
> > pre-nomination candidates for public office, or for
> internal
> > party
> > office. Our policies forbid giving some national
> convention
> > delegates
> > financial advantages over others. Our policies
require
> that
> > "special"
> > agreements with affiliates (agreements not offered
to
> all)
> > require LNC
> > approval. Our policies require advance approval of
> related
> > party
> > transactions and then various financial disclosures
> beyond
> just
> > FEC
> > reporting.
> > Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff to
> provide
> to
> > Ms.
> > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe
Connect
> > account
> > so
> > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their
caucus
> meeting.
> > Staff
> > then sent me a request to remind them of the login
> information.
> > We
> > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the use
of
> party
> > assets by
> > caucuses, however I objected based on the recurring
> theme
> of
> > the
> > other
> > LNC policies, and this offer was not being extended
to
> all
> > caucuses,
> > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing
that
> the
> > Radical
> > Caucus would find another meeting option.
> > I think the current situation may run afoul of some
of
> our
> > policies
> > below, but we shouldn't have to write a policy to
> anticipate
> > every
> > potential idea that might arise. There's enough
> collective
> > experience
> > on this board that good judgment should be able to
spot
> the bad
> > optics
> > here.
> > Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions
> > "The Party shall not directly or indirectly
compensate
> or
> > otherwise
> > underwrite or subsidize the convention travel,
lodging
> > (excepting
> > room
> > upgrades which the Party received at no cost),
> entertainment
> > costs or
> > speaker fees/honorariums of any Convention
delegates.
> This
> > policy
> > shall
> > not prohibit the Party from underwriting organized
> convention
> > events
> > offered to all donors of a particular level. Nor
shall
> it
> > prohibit
> > delegates from receiving complementary meals or
access
> to
> > convention
> > events in rough proportion to their level of
volunteer
> work.
> > All
> > volunteer compensation must be approved by the
> Convention
> > Oversight
> > Committee, and contemporaneously published when
actual
> > compensation is
> > received."
> > Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and
Expense
> > Reimbursements
> > "... Travel expenses incurred by officers for the
> explicit
> > purpose of
> > conducting Party business (excluding those incurred
for
> the
> > purpose of
> > attending LNC meetings) may be reimbursed.
Business
> travel
> > expenses
> > not pre-authorized by the LNC must be deemed
necessary
> and
> > approved in
> > writing by the Chair to qualify for reimbursement.
All
> travel
> > expense
> > reports are to be audited by the Treasurer, and
approved
> by the
> > Treasurer and the Chair."
> > NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for
"officers".
> > Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party
Reporting
> > "For each related party engaging in one or more
> financial
> > transactions
> > with the Party, all interim financial statements
shall
> include
> > a
> > report
> > of the status, nature and current and year-to-date
> amounts
> with
> > respect
> > to such transactions, including contributions,
expenses,
> loans,
> > commitments, guarantees or any other transaction."
> > Policy Manual Section 2.04.3 : Contracts and
Contract
> Approval
> > "All contracts or modifications thereto shall be in
> writing and
> > shall
> > document the nature of the products or services to
be
> provided
> > and the
> > terms and conditions with respect to the amount of
> > compensation/reimbursement or other consideration
to be
> paid.
> > ...
> > No
> > agreement involving a financial transaction with a
> related
> > party
> > shall
> > be executed unless first approved by the LNC. Any
such
> > agreement
> > shall
> > be disclosed in a conflict of interest statement."
> > Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on
Party
> Support
> > for
> > Public
> > Office
> > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
> information
> or
> > services
> > for any candidate for public office prior to the
> nomination
> > unless:
> > * such information or services are available and
> announced on
> > an
> > equal basis to all Libertarians who have
declared
> they
> are
> > seeking
> > that nomination,
> > * such information or services are generally
available
> and
> > announced
> > to all party members, or
> > * the service or candidate has been approved by
the
> state
> > chair."
> > Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on
Party
> Support
> > for
> > Party
> > Office
> > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
> information
> or
> > services
> > for any candidate for party office unless:
> > * such information or services are available and
> announced on
> > an
> > equal basis to all Libertarians who have
declared
> they
> are
> > seeking
> > that office, or
> > * such information or services are generally
available
> and
> > announced
> > to all party members."
> > Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate
Relationships
> > "Special agreements with states require the
approval of
> the
> > LNC."
> > NOTE: I am not certain the exact motivation for
adding
> this
> > language,
> > but it may have been one of the following. It
could
> have
> been
> > during
> > Project Archimedes in which states with partisan
voter
> > registration
> > were targeted for membership drives because there
> already
> > existed
> > a
> > list of people in that state who are
philosophically
> aligned
> > with
> > the
> > party. It could have been a situation during the
> Unified
> > Membership
> > Program in which an affiliate combined
state-specific
> mailings
> > with LP
> > News. It didn't cost the LNC additional expense.
The
> > affiliate
> > paid
> > the marginal cost of the extra postage, and the LNC
paid
> the
> > same
> > postage they would have otherwise incurred for LP
News.
> > -Alicia
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:[3][4]alicia.mattson at lp.org
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[5]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7]alicia.mattson at lp.org
References
1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
4. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
5. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
6. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
7. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list