[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Seeking Co-Sponsors: Motion to set the September Meeting Location
Susan Hogarth
susan.hogarth at lp.org
Thu Jul 19 07:29:37 EDT 2018
Caryn Ann,
Your feelings/fears are certainly valid, but what is not valid is presenting them as ‘female problems’. The idea that meeting in a home is somehow inherently more frightening for women is plain wrong, and frankly sexist.
When you say things like “It is highly prejudicial to female members of the party,” I *feel* that I am being recruited into this argument against my will.
So please, make your arguments. But make them on your own behalf - don’t drag me and every other women into them by claiming to speak on behalf of fears we may not (and in this case absolutely do not, speaking for myself) share.
Susan Jane Hogarth
Region 5 Alternate
919-906-2106 (tel:919-906-2106)
>
> On Jul 19, 2018 at 7:14 AM, <Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business (mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org)> wrote:
>
>
>
> Starchild it is how I feel. When someone is saying they feel unsafe
> and the other person is just insisting on some cost-saving measure, yes
> that is brushing off. Safety and fear trump that.
> To the Hancocks, I SO appreciate your offer. This is a long-standing
> debate that has nothing to do with you guys at all. If you wish to
> call me to discuss 561.523.2250.
> But Starchild, bottom line. I don't have to justify my and other's
> safety concerns to you. I don't.
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Starchild <[1]sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
> It's very unfair to claim that for years I've just "brushed
> off" or "ignored" your concerns. As you've alluded to, you and I
> have talked multiple times – it's hardly as if I've ignored you or
> haven't listened to you on the topic. We simply don't see eye to
> eye. You feel frustrated? Me too! Crap like this is one reason I
> felt unmotivated to run again for an LNC seat this year. It is more
> objectively accurate to describe MY concerns as the ones that have
> been brushed off and ignored. After all, the LNC has continued to
> schedule its meetings the way YOU prefer, year after year paying for
> expensive hotel meeting rooms instead of utilizing free meeting
> locations, during the entire time that either of us have been on the
> committee.
> Your own personal feelings of safety in one location versus
> another are what they are, and there's no debating feelings. But
> when you talk about this issue as "a real safety concern for female
> members of our Party", I think that is presuming too much. While I'm
> open to being shown to be wrong about this, I strongly question
> whether most women in the LP would feel more concerned about their
> safety going to a party member's home during the day for a business
> meeting, than going to a member's home at night for a party where
> there's lots of booze! Most sexual assaults, by the way, occur at
> the hands of someone the victim knows, and a couple hours is plenty
> of time in which something could happen, so there is *never* "zero
> chance for conflict". But I think an honest look at the situation
> shows the risks are very low, and if you are, contra the statistical
> evidence, worried about random strangers, you're far more likely to
> encounter them at a hotel than in an LP member's home.
> Except for LNC members, attendance is optional in both cases
> (and unlike a party, you can usually catch an LNC meeting on
> livestream if you can't be there in person), but obviously we want
> people to attend the fundraiser parties, just as we want them to
> attend LNC meetings. So if there really are widespread safety fears
> among our members about attending events held in private homes in
> general, we should address those fears. Perhaps provide volunteer
> safety escorts and safety monitors at these events, perhaps offer
> self-defense classes and hand out mace, perhaps just reassure people
> with the facts, or if none of those things are deemed sufficient,
> perhaps even stop doing home fundraisers altogether – not just say
> it doesn't matter because attending our parties is optional. But
> first I'd want to see evidence that such widespread safety fears
> exist.
> You're really worried that a party member might not want you
> to bring a cooler of diet Mountain Dew into their home? I know diet
> sodas are disgusting... ;-) ...but *really*? Not that I recall you
> (or anyone) ever bringing a big drink cooler to one of our meetings,
> but surely bringing in outside food or beverages is much more likely
> to be an issue at a hotel than at someone's home. And people use
> home projectors all the time! One has to "make a big show" of
> getting an Uber? Not where I'm from. These are very strange
> objections. And for the record, I know Ernie and Donna have multiple
> discrete rooms in their home to which non–committee members could
> undoubtedly retire during secret meetings, and even multiple
> bathrooms. We're not talking about meeting in a refugee camp (cue
> Tom Petty song, "You don't have to live like a refugee..." –
> [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc)!
> You write that "a business meeting should be something that
> *everyone* is comfortable with", but then you go on to write that, "
> I understand that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable
> in traditional atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever." Now
> which is it? That latter statement sure sounds like you are being
> dismissive of others' concerns, instead of trying to find middle
> ground.
> In any case, although I do have issues with the sterile
> aesthetics and controlled environment typical of hotels, the real
> issue here is not about atmosphere, traditional or otherwise (a home
> is in fact a much more *traditional* atmosphere than a hotel). It is
> about wasting thousands of dollars on unnecessary frills when we
> could be putting those resources toward advancing the cause of
> freedom!
> Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in
> someone's living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such
> a meeting due to concerns about liability? Pshaw!
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> P.S. – Jeff, as my Region 2 LNC rep., I request you forward my
> message above to the list if no one else does. Thank you!
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:04 PM, [3]lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:
> > Thank you for considering my points.
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Richard Longstreth
> > <[1][4]richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the very reasonable argument! I hadn't
> considered that
> > viewpoint and completely understand not supporting this for
> those
> > reasons.
> >
> > Richard
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:10 Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> > <[2][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > And there are liability concerns.
> > -Caryn Ann
> > And to preempt Starchild's always rebuttal. "But what about those
> > Friday night parties?" A party is a totally different context and
> is
> > OPTIONAL. I go there were several members of the LNC that I know
> well,
> > there is zero chance for conflict, and it is very very short term,
> a
> > couple of hours at most. And each time so far, it has been
> someone
> > I know. There may be a time where I don't go to the Friday party.
> > Oh my word, I can just see us setting up a projector in someone's
> > house. Me dragging in a cooler of diet mountain dews and none of
> us
> > wanting to snack for fear of being too messy. And if someone just
> > wants to leave, rather than a polite excusal and out the door, one
> has
> > to make a big show of it and get an uber. And what about executive
> > session? We ban guests to the back yard? Stand in line for the
> > toilet?
> > It is very very generous of the Hancock's to offer and NONE of this
> is
> > about them. My frustration is how my concerns have gone ignored by
> > Starchild for years and just brushed off. My frustration is that
> this
> > a real safety concern for female members of our Party and it is
> treated
> > by him like nothing. He knows my frustration at this.
> > Business for most people requires a business atmosphere. I
> understand
> > that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in
> traditional
> > atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever. But I don't think
> > keeping a custom of business in a business conference room is so
> > outrageous, particularly considering the safety concerns that
> ladies
> > who know none of us will have.
> >
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> > <[3][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Oh sorry I forgot I would be the one to start a ballot!
> > I have fought with Starchild for two years on this. It is
> highly
> > prejudicial to female members of the party, and I personally am
> very
> > uncomfortable with a business meeting in these circumstances.
> WE ARE
> > THE THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE COUNTRY.
> > Let's not make this look reasonable.
> > [4][7]https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-
> site-
> > of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
> > Starchild sometimes just dismisses the concerns of others when
> he
> > doesn't understand them. I told him this so this criticism is
> no
> > surprise.
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> > <[5][8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > I vote no.
> > I have always been opposed to this and I will explain why. A
> business
> > meeting should be something *everyone* is comfortable with.
> Women, in
> > general, are not comfortable going to a home of someone they do
> not
> > know -- I am not referring to committee members. I am referring
> to
> > members outside of that. I *would never* travel elsewhere
> > unaccompanied and my husband I would just be at so and so's
> house that
> > he doesn't know.
> > It is very uncomfortable. And it is uncomfortable for
> business. You
> > never know what can come up. And sometimes things get heated.
> Where
> > do you storm off to? The back yard? I have never stormed off
> but it
> > has happened.
> > Absolutely not. What if someone gets ill? There are a WHOLE
> lot of
> > unforseens.
> > Hell even in CO we knew not to have board meetings at people's
> homes
> > for these reasons.
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Richard Longstreth via
> Lnc-business
>
> > <[6][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sam, thank you for your consideration and vote prior to
> getting
> > the
> > questions answered and a ballot declared. I would ask that if
> > you have
> > quesitons or concerns, please ask them so that we may get the
> > answers.
> > I also ask that you do not blankedtly dismiss this or any idea
> > prior to
> > having an opportunity to address the concerns and make a
> proper
> > determination as to whether this venue will suffice.
> > I believe many of these concerns are implicitly answered by
> > reading the
> > email Starchild copied us on where he laid out our
> requirements.
> > I have
> > also asked Mr Hancock Whitney's questions and will await his
> > response
> > before asking more.
> > Tim, Starchild did mention wifi in his initial inquiry and
> > because Mr
> > Hancock did not explicitly state his capabilities, I will be
> > asking
> > this question.
> > Hotels in Arizona are fairly cheap, in general and provided
> you
> > aren't
> > looking for 5 star. I regularly am staying in one throughough
> the
> > Phoenix area and find the price range to be slightly better
> than
> > average when compared to traveling outside of the state. The
> > average
> > Hampton Inn is right around $100-$110 as price point. I
> typically
> > stay
> > in Choice Brands and pay an average of $60 a night. I will
> > attempt to
> > find out the specific area and advise further. Remember, due
> to
> > temperatures, this is the tail end of our slow season.
> > The question of transport is fair, however, I note that many
> on
> > the LNC
> > will need to transport wherever we are meeting anyway. Whether
> > that is
> > from the airport to the hotel and we meet in the hotel or
> > something
> > else. If it could save our membership hundreds, if not
> thousands,
> > by
> > not renting out a space, I think it is worth at least a
> > consideration
> > before rejecting the idea completely and not rejecting on a
> free
> > offer
> > at face value. I have a car and am willing to pack it like
> > sardines to
> > save you an uber or lyft, if that is your concern.
> > Richard
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:57 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business
>
> > <[1][7][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > Average high for September 29 & 30 is 95 degrees. Record
> high
> > for
> > September 29 was 107 degrees in 2003. September is the
> end of
> > the
> > monsoon season, so the end of the month is less likely to
> have
> > thunderstorms or humidity.
> > Does the place have WiFi to live-stream the meeting? What
> are
> > the
> > room
> > rates for the hotels nearby or within walking distance?
> > ---
> > Tim Hagan
> > Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
> > On 2018-07-18 20:09, Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business
> wrote:
> >> Also, temperatures in Phoenix in September...75-100 on
> > average?
> >> Something to consider for the outdoor meeting proposal...
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:00 PM Whitney Bilyeu
> >> <[1][2][8][11]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> How far is this place from the airport? How far from the
> > nearest
> >> hotel?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 9:49 PM Richard Longstreth via
> > Lnc-business
> >
>
> >> <[2][3][9][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Motion: In order to save the general membership funds, I
> > move
> >> to
> >> set
> >> the September Meeting location at the home of Ernest and
> > Donna
> >> Hancock.
> >> ===
> >> Rationale: A member in the Phoenix area has indicated
> > that
> > they
> >> have
> >> the space available, at no charge, to host our meeting.
> > The
> >> meeting
> >> location has not currently been set and I am unaware of
> > where
> >> we
> >> are at
> >> as far as determining a location. After asking the
> > question
> >> last
> >> week
> >> and getting no official answer, I am now moving to set
> > the
> >> location
> >> ahead of any official announcement. I would encourage
> > everyone
> >> to
> >> review the email Starchild sent to us yesterday which
> > includes
> >> comments
> >> from Ernie, the homeowner.
> >> Richard Longstreth
> >> Region 1 Representative
> >> --
> >> Richard Longstreth
> >> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
> > UT,
> >> WA,
> >> WY)
> >> Libertarian National Committee
> >
>
> >> [1][3][4][10][13]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> >> [5]931.538.9300
> >> References
> >> 1. mailto:[4][6][11][14]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> >>
> >> References
> >>
> >> 1. mailto:[7][12][15]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> >> 2. mailto:[8][13][16]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> 3. mailto:[9][14][17]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> >> 4. mailto:[10][15][18]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > --
> > Richard Longstreth
> > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
> UT, WA,
> > WY)
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > [11][16][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 931.538.9300
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:[17][20]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 2. mailto:[18][21]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:[19][22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 4. mailto:[20][23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 5. tel:(931) 538-9300
> > 6. mailto:[21][24]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 7. mailto:[22][25]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 8. mailto:[23][26]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 9. mailto:[24][27]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 10. mailto:[25][28]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 11. mailto:[26][29]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> >
> > --
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> > - [27]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> > A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> > We defend your rights
> > And oppose the use of force
> > Taxation is theft
> >
> > --
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> > - [28]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> > A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> > We defend your rights
> > And oppose the use of force
> > Taxation is theft
> >
> > --
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> > - [29]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> > A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> > We defend your rights
> > And oppose the use of force
> > Taxation is theft
> >
> > --
> >
> > Richard Longstreth
> > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
> WY)
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > [30][30]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 931.538.9300
> >
> > --
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> > - [31]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> > A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> > We defend your rights
> > And oppose the use of force
> > Taxation is theft
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:[31]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 2. mailto:[32]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:[33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 4. [34]https://politics.theonion.com/
> l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
> > 5. mailto:[35]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 6. mailto:[36]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 7. mailto:[37]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 8. mailto:[38]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 9. mailto:[39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 10. mailto:[40]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 11. mailto:[41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 12. mailto:[42]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 13. mailto:[43]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 14. mailto:[44]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 15. mailto:[45]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 16. mailto:[46]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 17. mailto:[47]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 18. mailto:[48]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 19. mailto:[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 20. mailto:[50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 21. mailto:[51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 22. mailto:[52]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> > 23. mailto:[53]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > 24. mailto:[54]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 25. mailto:[55]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 26. mailto:[56]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 27. mailto:[57]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 28. mailto:[58]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 29. mailto:[59]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 30. mailto:[60]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 31. mailto:[61]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "lncvotes" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to [62]lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit [63]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-votes mailing list
> > [64]Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> > [65]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "lncvotes" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to [66]lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit [67]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [68]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net
> 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc
> 3. mailto:lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-
> 8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 13. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 14. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 15. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 16. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 17. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 18. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 20. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 21. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 25. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 26. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 27. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 28. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 29. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 30. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 31. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 32. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 34. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
> 35. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 36. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 37. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 38. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 39. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 40. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 41. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 42. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 43. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 44. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 45. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 46. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 47. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 48. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 51. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 52. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 53. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 54. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 55. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 56. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 57. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 58. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 59. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 60. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 61. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 62. mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> 63. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 64. mailto:Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> 65. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes
> 66. mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> 67. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 68. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Caryn Ann,
Your feelings/fears are certainly valid, but what is not valid is
presenting them as ‘female problems’. The idea that meeting in a home
is somehow inherently more frightening for women is plain wrong, and
frankly sexist.
When you say things like “It is highly prejudicial to female members of
the party,” I *feel* that I am being recruited into this argument
against my will.
So please, make your arguments. But make them on your own behalf -
don’t drag me and every other women into them by claiming to speak on
behalf of fears we may not (and in this case absolutely do not,
speaking for myself) share.
Susan Jane Hogarth
Region 5 Alternate
[1]919-906-2106
On Jul 19, 2018 at 7:14 AM, <[2]Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business>
wrote:
Starchild it is how I feel. When someone is saying they feel unsafe
and the other person is just insisting on some cost-saving measure, yes
that is brushing off. Safety and fear trump that.
To the Hancocks, I SO appreciate your offer. This is a long-standing
debate that has nothing to do with you guys at all. If you wish to
call me to discuss 561.523.2250.
But Starchild, bottom line. I don't have to justify my and other's
safety concerns to you. I don't.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Starchild <[1]sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
wrote:
Caryn Ann,
It's very unfair to claim that for years I've just "brushed
off" or "ignored" your concerns. As you've alluded to, you and I
have talked multiple times – it's hardly as if I've ignored you or
haven't listened to you on the topic. We simply don't see eye to
eye. You feel frustrated? Me too! Crap like this is one reason I
felt unmotivated to run again for an LNC seat this year. It is more
objectively accurate to describe MY concerns as the ones that have
been brushed off and ignored. After all, the LNC has continued to
schedule its meetings the way YOU prefer, year after year paying for
expensive hotel meeting rooms instead of utilizing free meeting
locations, during the entire time that either of us have been on the
committee.
Your own personal feelings of safety in one location versus
another are what they are, and there's no debating feelings. But
when you talk about this issue as "a real safety concern for female
members of our Party", I think that is presuming too much. While I'm
open to being shown to be wrong about this, I strongly question
whether most women in the LP would feel more concerned about their
safety going to a party member's home during the day for a business
meeting, than going to a member's home at night for a party where
there's lots of booze! Most sexual assaults, by the way, occur at
the hands of someone the victim knows, and a couple hours is plenty
of time in which something could happen, so there is *never* "zero
chance for conflict". But I think an honest look at the situation
shows the risks are very low, and if you are, contra the statistical
evidence, worried about random strangers, you're far more likely to
encounter them at a hotel than in an LP member's home.
Except for LNC members, attendance is optional in both cases
(and unlike a party, you can usually catch an LNC meeting on
livestream if you can't be there in person), but obviously we want
people to attend the fundraiser parties, just as we want them to
attend LNC meetings. So if there really are widespread safety fears
among our members about attending events held in private homes in
general, we should address those fears. Perhaps provide volunteer
safety escorts and safety monitors at these events, perhaps offer
self-defense classes and hand out mace, perhaps just reassure people
with the facts, or if none of those things are deemed sufficient,
perhaps even stop doing home fundraisers altogether – not just say
it doesn't matter because attending our parties is optional. But
first I'd want to see evidence that such widespread safety fears
exist.
You're really worried that a party member might not want you
to bring a cooler of diet Mountain Dew into their home? I know diet
sodas are disgusting... ;-) ...but *really*? Not that I recall you
(or anyone) ever bringing a big drink cooler to one of our meetings,
but surely bringing in outside food or beverages is much more likely
to be an issue at a hotel than at someone's home. And people use
home projectors all the time! One has to "make a big show" of
getting an Uber? Not where I'm from. These are very strange
objections. And for the record, I know Ernie and Donna have multiple
discrete rooms in their home to which non–committee members could
undoubtedly retire during secret meetings, and even multiple
bathrooms. We're not talking about meeting in a refugee camp (cue
Tom Petty song, "You don't have to live like a refugee..." –
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc)!
You write that "a business meeting should be something that
*everyone* is comfortable with", but then you go on to write that, "
I understand that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable
in traditional atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever." Now
which is it? That latter statement sure sounds like you are being
dismissive of others' concerns, instead of trying to find middle
ground.
In any case, although I do have issues with the sterile
aesthetics and controlled environment typical of hotels, the real
issue here is not about atmosphere, traditional or otherwise (a home
is in fact a much more *traditional* atmosphere than a hotel). It is
about wasting thousands of dollars on unnecessary frills when we
could be putting those resources toward advancing the cause of
freedom!
Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party got started in
someone's living room. What if David Nolan had refused to host such
a meeting due to concerns about liability? Pshaw!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – Jeff, as my Region 2 LNC rep., I request you forward my
message above to the list if no one else does. Thank you!
On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:04 PM, [3]lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:
> Thank you for considering my points.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Richard Longstreth
> <[1][4]richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the very reasonable argument! I hadn't
considered that
> viewpoint and completely understand not supporting this for
those
> reasons.
>
> Richard
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:10 Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> And there are liability concerns.
> -Caryn Ann
> And to preempt Starchild's always rebuttal. "But what about those
> Friday night parties?" A party is a totally different context and
is
> OPTIONAL. I go there were several members of the LNC that I know
well,
> there is zero chance for conflict, and it is very very short term,
a
> couple of hours at most. And each time so far, it has been
someone
> I know. There may be a time where I don't go to the Friday party.
> Oh my word, I can just see us setting up a projector in someone's
> house. Me dragging in a cooler of diet mountain dews and none of
us
> wanting to snack for fear of being too messy. And if someone just
> wants to leave, rather than a polite excusal and out the door, one
has
> to make a big show of it and get an uber. And what about executive
> session? We ban guests to the back yard? Stand in line for the
> toilet?
> It is very very generous of the Hancock's to offer and NONE of this
is
> about them. My frustration is how my concerns have gone ignored by
> Starchild for years and just brushed off. My frustration is that
this
> a real safety concern for female members of our Party and it is
treated
> by him like nothing. He knows my frustration at this.
> Business for most people requires a business atmosphere. I
understand
> that Starchild is concerned about those uncomfortable in
traditional
> atmospheres. You can't please everyone. Ever. But I don't think
> keeping a custom of business in a business conference room is so
> outrageous, particularly considering the safety concerns that
ladies
> who know none of us will have.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[3][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Oh sorry I forgot I would be the one to start a ballot!
> I have fought with Starchild for two years on this. It is
highly
> prejudicial to female members of the party, and I personally am
very
> uncomfortable with a business meeting in these circumstances.
WE ARE
> THE THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE COUNTRY.
> Let's not make this look reasonable.
> [4][7]https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-
site-
> of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
> Starchild sometimes just dismisses the concerns of others when
he
> doesn't understand them. I told him this so this criticism is
no
> surprise.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[5][8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I vote no.
> I have always been opposed to this and I will explain why. A
business
> meeting should be something *everyone* is comfortable with.
Women, in
> general, are not comfortable going to a home of someone they do
not
> know -- I am not referring to committee members. I am referring
to
> members outside of that. I *would never* travel elsewhere
> unaccompanied and my husband I would just be at so and so's
house that
> he doesn't know.
> It is very uncomfortable. And it is uncomfortable for
business. You
> never know what can come up. And sometimes things get heated.
Where
> do you storm off to? The back yard? I have never stormed off
but it
> has happened.
> Absolutely not. What if someone gets ill? There are a WHOLE
lot of
> unforseens.
> Hell even in CO we knew not to have board meetings at people's
homes
> for these reasons.
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Richard Longstreth via
Lnc-business
> <[6][9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Sam, thank you for your consideration and vote prior to
getting
> the
> questions answered and a ballot declared. I would ask that if
> you have
> quesitons or concerns, please ask them so that we may get the
> answers.
> I also ask that you do not blankedtly dismiss this or any idea
> prior to
> having an opportunity to address the concerns and make a
proper
> determination as to whether this venue will suffice.
> I believe many of these concerns are implicitly answered by
> reading the
> email Starchild copied us on where he laid out our
requirements.
> I have
> also asked Mr Hancock Whitney's questions and will await his
> response
> before asking more.
> Tim, Starchild did mention wifi in his initial inquiry and
> because Mr
> Hancock did not explicitly state his capabilities, I will be
> asking
> this question.
> Hotels in Arizona are fairly cheap, in general and provided
you
> aren't
> looking for 5 star. I regularly am staying in one throughough
the
> Phoenix area and find the price range to be slightly better
than
> average when compared to traveling outside of the state. The
> average
> Hampton Inn is right around $100-$110 as price point. I
typically
> stay
> in Choice Brands and pay an average of $60 a night. I will
> attempt to
> find out the specific area and advise further. Remember, due
to
> temperatures, this is the tail end of our slow season.
> The question of transport is fair, however, I note that many
on
> the LNC
> will need to transport wherever we are meeting anyway. Whether
> that is
> from the airport to the hotel and we meet in the hotel or
> something
> else. If it could save our membership hundreds, if not
thousands,
> by
> not renting out a space, I think it is worth at least a
> consideration
> before rejecting the idea completely and not rejecting on a
free
> offer
> at face value. I have a car and am willing to pack it like
> sardines to
> save you an uber or lyft, if that is your concern.
> Richard
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:57 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business
> <[1][7][10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Average high for September 29 & 30 is 95 degrees. Record
high
> for
> September 29 was 107 degrees in 2003. September is the
end of
> the
> monsoon season, so the end of the month is less likely to
have
> thunderstorms or humidity.
> Does the place have WiFi to live-stream the meeting? What
are
> the
> room
> rates for the hotels nearby or within walking distance?
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
> On 2018-07-18 20:09, Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business
wrote:
>> Also, temperatures in Phoenix in September...75-100 on
> average?
>> Something to consider for the outdoor meeting proposal...
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:00 PM Whitney Bilyeu
>> <[1][2][8][11]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> How far is this place from the airport? How far from the
> nearest
>> hotel?
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 9:49 PM Richard Longstreth via
> Lnc-business
>
>> <[2][3][9][12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Motion: In order to save the general membership funds, I
> move
>> to
>> set
>> the September Meeting location at the home of Ernest and
> Donna
>> Hancock.
>> ===
>> Rationale: A member in the Phoenix area has indicated
> that
> they
>> have
>> the space available, at no charge, to host our meeting.
> The
>> meeting
>> location has not currently been set and I am unaware of
> where
>> we
>> are at
>> as far as determining a location. After asking the
> question
>> last
>> week
>> and getting no official answer, I am now moving to set
> the
>> location
>> ahead of any official announcement. I would encourage
> everyone
>> to
>> review the email Starchild sent to us yesterday which
> includes
>> comments
>> from Ernie, the homeowner.
>> Richard Longstreth
>> Region 1 Representative
>> --
>> Richard Longstreth
>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
> UT,
>> WA,
>> WY)
>> Libertarian National Committee
>
>> [1][3][4][10][13]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>> [5]931.538.9300
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[4][6][11][14]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:[7][12][15]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[8][13][16]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[9][14][17]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[10][15][18]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> --
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI,
UT, WA,
> WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [11][16][19]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[17][20]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[18][21]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[19][22]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[20][23]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 5. tel:(931) 538-9300
> 6. mailto:[21][24]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 7. mailto:[22][25]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 8. mailto:[23][26]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. mailto:[24][27]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 10. mailto:[25][28]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 11. mailto:[26][29]richard.longstreth at lp.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [27]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [28]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [29]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> --
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [30][30]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [31]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[31]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[32]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. [34]https://politics.theonion.com/
l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libertarian-conv-1819565649
> 5. mailto:[35]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[36]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto:[37]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:[38]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[39]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 10. mailto:[40]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 11. mailto:[41]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 12. mailto:[42]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 13. mailto:[43]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 14. mailto:[44]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 15. mailto:[45]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 16. mailto:[46]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 17. mailto:[47]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 18. mailto:[48]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 19. mailto:[49]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 20. mailto:[50]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 21. mailto:[51]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 22. mailto:[52]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
> 23. mailto:[53]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 24. mailto:[54]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 25. mailto:[55]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 26. mailto:[56]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 27. mailto:[57]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 28. mailto:[58]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 29. mailto:[59]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 30. mailto:[60]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 31. mailto:[61]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [62]lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit [63]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-votes mailing list
> [64]Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> [65]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [66]lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit [67]https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [68]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ8_yUiIMc
3. mailto:lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
14. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
15. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
16. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
18. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
19. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
20. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
22. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
24. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
25. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
26. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
27. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
28. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
29. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
30. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
31. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
32. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
34. https://politics.theonion.com/l-a-efficiency-chosen-as-site-of-2000-libert
arian-conv-1819565649
35. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
36. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
37. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
38. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
39. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
41. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
42. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
43. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
44. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
45. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
46. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
47. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
48. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
49. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
50. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
51. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
52. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
53. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
54. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
55. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
56. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
57. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
58. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
59. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
60. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
61. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
62. mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
63. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
64. mailto:Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
65. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes
66. mailto:lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
67. https://groups.google.com/d/optout
68. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
References
1. tel:919-906-2106
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list