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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Phillips, it appears we mostly agree.

I ask everyone to turn down the emotional heat a tad - and that is
something coming from me who is more likely than most to get emotionally
lathered up, but the dispersions beginning to be cast needs to be nipped in
the bud.  I apologize to Mr. Smith if he took my statement on posturing
that way - I do believe he is acting completely in good faith, and retract
that statement.

-Caryn Ann

*  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.  *


On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:20 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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. _
>>
>