[Lnc-business] Seeking Co-Sponsors to work on Policy Manual style issues postponed from last meeting

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr. Phillips.  I’m willing to divide in any way.  But that
requires someone making the effort to tell me what they wish.  On this
issue no one can say I did not go out my way to break things down with a
coded index.

It’s been months.  I’ve always talked about this for nearly a year before
presenting.

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:13 AM John Phillips <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

>    People constantly complain about putting up motions without discussion,
> but then will never discuss unless a motion is brought forward,  and then
> half of the discussion is complaining that it wasn't discussed first.
>
>    This has happened repeatedly.
>
>    In this particular case we were presented with this information months
> ago, with the expectation of it being brought back up - clearly stated in
> our last meeting.  While several times this has not been the case, this
> time it was.
>
>    Anyone who did not go over it - thats on them not the maker of the
> motion. So honestly, my feeling on this matter is put up or shut up, to put
> it crudely.  Step up and discuss, or don't complain when it comes up as a
> motion.
>
>
>    HOWEVER, as I believe we discovered in our last budget meeting, motions
> to separate are always in order, and only require a majority.  Nor do I
> think there is a specific requirement on how we separate.
>
>   So if that is really the issue make such a motion.  Though I believe Ms
> Harlos indicated she has split the substantive changes from the merely
> style/grammar changes already, so unsure why that would be necessary, as I
> m not going to argue for days over where a comma is.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Oct 20, 2019 4:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> At the meeting, I had indicated the categories as indicated by the colour
> coding.  The only person who has indicated that they have actually
> reviewed
> with specific comments has been Dr. Lark who corresponded with me on the
> issues in the month following the LNC meeting without any prompting from
> me
> because we all left knowing what was left, so no, my comments are not
> unfair.  My comments about email motions weren't solely about this,
> however
> -- other LNC members have said the same thing about other motions and
> there
> are more than a few who will no longer volunteer to do so in order to cut
> agenda time.  I just happen to be a bit more vocal, but I can assure you,
> this is not an isolated feeling.  We can blame the messenger or deal with
> the issue.  All the same to me either way because if I am one thing, it is
> persistent.  I maintain my position - and anyone is free to disagree -
> that
> when someone does voluntarily and out of courtesy move something off of
> the
> agenda that it is discourteous to not do the homework to be able to
> conduct
> the business nearly two months later.  *I asked for comments and input
> several times without response.  *It took me finally getting the sponsors
> to prompt even a vague conversation.  Style clean-ups are necessary
> periodically despite not being the most sexy of tasks, and myself and
> several volunteers put in over a dozen hours on this, and we deserve the
> respect of consideration of the work.  This is an endemic problem in the
> Party as Mr. Longstreth and I share the agony of working on something
> instructed by a board for several years only to have it ignored without
> even a thank you.  It is unprofessional.
>
> *If there had been ANY earlier input about breaking into different
> categories, I would have.* Even a simple request asking for more time etc
>
> could have been made.  It was not.  This has happened before to several
> people, there is absolutely no interaction until they finally ask for
> email
> sponsors then all of a sudden there is commentary.  That is quite
> frustrating on items for which there is PLENTY of notice.  It is rude, and
> that is my position.  I do not treat anyone's work in that manner and none
> of us should.
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > It's unfair to your LNC colleagues to describe the discussion from the
> last
> > meeting as allegedly the LNC talked you into doing this by email ballot
> > with "no real intention to handle by email ballot."
> >
> > The first the LNC saw of this material was in the wee hours of Friday
> > morning before the LNC meeting started on Saturday.  There was no way we
> > could have reviewed this and been ready for a vote so quickly.  Even the
> > minutes portray that you had merely distributed something for our
> review,
> > and didn't even make a motion on the subject.  The end of the discussion
> > was that further work was needed, and in order to take it up by email
> > ballot it would need to be broken up into several categories of changes.
> > Now you're asking for almost all of it in a single motion, and when I
> say
> > it needs to be broken up, you impugn motives and act as though we are
> the
> > ones changing the plan.  That is not what happened, and I don't want to
> > leave that impression hanging for the readers.
> >
> > -Alicia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 5:55 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have no issue putting back on agenda, and this time, I will not be
> so
> > > accommodating to agree to email ballot knowing that there is no real
> > > intention to handle by email ballot.
> > >
> > > In order to simply further, I will break out further - such as the
> > > parentheticals and the lists.
> > >
> > > This has been in the possession of the LNC for several months now with
> > > adequate time to review.  I am willing to work with everyone to
> present
> > and
> > > vote in the most logical manner but it is like pulling teeth to get
> > > anything started which is not particularly motivating.
> > >
> > > This evening I will break out those categories.  I cannot do anything
> > with
> > > vague references to something that might be wrong.  I think we owe
> each
> > > other a tad bit more specificity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *In Liberty,*
> > >
> > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> anyone
> > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> faux
> > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 6:22 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have looked through some, but not all, of these million-ish items.
> I
> > can
> > >> support some, but I object to others and cannot co-sponsor or vote in
> > >> favor
> > >> of the bulk package.
> > >>
> > >> I am writing from my phone, not sitting looking at the file now, but
> off
> > >> the top of my head here are a few that I recall.
> > >>
> > >> I do not wish to both spell out and write numbers in Arabic numerals.
> It
> > >> may be standard for legal briefs, but it’s just bulky to read around.
> I
> > >> know that “5” is the same thing as “five” without being told both.
> > >>
> > >> There was at least one instance in which changes were proposed to be
> > made
> > >> within the quotation marks of a RONR quote, adding text not in the
> > >> original
> > >> document.
> > >>
> > >> There were a number of places where the insert/strike formatting
> wasn’t
> > >> done correctly making it hard to discern what was to be done with
> that
> > >> text.
> > >>
> > >> I don’t wish to change numbered/lettered lists to bullet points. I
> like
> > >> being able to cite subsections more precisely.
> > >>
> > >> Etc.
> > >>
> > >> This should not be done in such bulk by email when amendments aren’t
> > >> feasible.
> > >>
> > >> Even when amendments are feasible, this is too many things to roll
> into
> > >> one
> > >> motion.
> > >>
> > >> -Alicia
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:46 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Attached are the items I distributed last meeting comprising an
> index
> > >> and a
> > >> > marked-up copy of the Policy Manual.  I am seeking co-sponsors to
> make
> > >> all
> > >> > of the changes except for the ones marked in red which may be
> > considered
> > >> > substantive which I will address separately.
> > >> >
> > >> > *  In Liberty,*
> > >> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> Syndrome
> > >> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > >> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> > anyone
> > >> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> social
> > >> faux
> > >> > pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me
> > know.  *
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *