[Lnc-business] Requirements for Sustaining Membership in the Libertarian Party

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr. Hagan, I was going to ask you about this.

*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, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:16 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> The third option of not cashing nor returning the check is not legal.
> Within ten days of receipt by the treasurer or authorized agent, a
> contribution or other receipt must be deposited in the committee's
> campaign depository or returned to the source. [Code of Federal
> Regulations, Title 11, Section 103.3(a)]  I should have mentioned
> earlier that we have this time limit. Federal regulations do permit
> depositing a contribution and later sending the person a refund check.
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2019-12-21 19:40, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > I am willing to be convinced either way, as I said in the off list
> conversation. I myself of am of 2 minds on the subject at hand.  I find the
> crimes listed to be reprehensible, yet I am also open to reform, arguments
> against the state, etc.
> >
> > However, I will not accept blanket inaccurate statements, nor will I
> accept statements made in a dictatorial tone, particularly when they have
> had solid arguments made against.
> >
> > I also do not believe that anyone was attempting to issue directives to
> the ED.  They were merely stating their opinions strongly.
> >
> > I do agree with the objection of making the name public, while also
> agreeing with the desire for the rest of the conversation to be held up for
> transparency.
> >
> > I do not, nor ever will, agree that it is a matter not up for
> discussion.  I find the argument that there being no rule on it means we
> cannot do anything nonsensical.
> >
> > The NAP pledge is part of membership for a reason. To ignore that is to
> ignore a large part of our raison d'etre as a party.
> >
> > To argue that the body can do nothing in a situation which has been
> argued is not covered under the bylaws is to then argue that this body also
> then has little reason to exist other than to engage in mental masturbation
> circle jerks.
> >
> > If it is covered under the bylaws then by all means show everyone the
> appropriate passages and we can walk away.  If it is not then that is
> exactly the purpose of a body such as ours, to deal with such situations in
> a timely manner.
> >
> > If indeed the it is the duty of the delegates then a 3rd option is
> available to us that no one has discussed.
> >
> > Do nothing.  Do not cash the check, do not return it.  Bring it to the
> delegates in May.  If the position of the body is that it is the delegates
> decision, then it is that easily addressed.  I would have thought that
> answer to be obvious.  I personally find it distasteful to pass the buck
> like that, but it is a compromise I could abide by.
> >
> > I assure you that members are already planning on doing so in a related
> case we are all familiar with.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2019 5:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe Mr Sarwarkis right on all points.
> >
> > However the discussion omitting any individual names should be public.
> >
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Sarwark,
> >
> > I have a lot of respect for you.  However, you are completely
> mis-stating the actions of this board, and that I cannot and will not
> accept.
> >
> > No one thought "they had the individual authority".  We were ALL asked
> for opinions, and several, including yourself and myself, gave those
> OPINIONS on how it should be handled,  NOT directives.
> >
> > As for the rest;
> >
> > 1. It is the responsibility of this board to respond to concerns brought
> to them by staff and members.
> > 2.  As responded privately it absence of a policy/by-law we CAN make a
> decision.  That is one of the main purposes of a board.  Should we is up
> for debate, but we absolutely can.
> >
> > If you wish to debate the "should" by all means continue, that is well
> within your purview, as it is all of ours.
> >
> > If you are making an official ruling in your capacity as chair, you are
> incorrect/mistaken. Not just in your reasoning, but your thought that we
> will let you dictate in such a manner.  So if this IS a ruling, I challenge
> the ruling of the chair.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2019 7:18 AM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Apparently some members of the LNC think it's appropriate to discuss in
> a
> > public forum an individual who sent in a contribution to the Libertarian
> > Party with a signed pledge, is not a public figure, and is not able to
> > advocate on his own behalf. It is not.
> >
> > Apparently some members of this committee think that they have the
> > individual authority to tell the Executive Director how to handle a
> > membership contribution from someone with a criminal conviction in
> absence
> > of any bylaws or policy manual justification for the action. They do
> not.
> >
> > The requirements for sustaining membership in the Libertarian Party are
> > defined by the delegates at convention in the bylaws. The Libertarian
> > National Committee has no power to add requirements for sustaining
> > membership that are beyond the bylaws, only the delegates at the next
> > convention have that power. If they want to add further requirements to
> be
> > a sustaining member that would disqualify people from joining the party,
> > they may do so by a 2/3 vote of the national convention.
> >
> > Sending back a legal contribution from a person who has signed the
> pledge
> > has the effect of creating an additional requirement for sustaining
> > membership that could be described as, "the Executive Director approves
> of
> > the member." There may be good reasons for this requirement, there may
> be
> > good reasons not to adopt this requirement, but those would need to be
> > considered by the convention delegates, it's not a requirement that can
> be
> > created without authority from the bylaws.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > Nick
>  --
>
> 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. _
>