[Lnc-business] NOTICE OF SPECIAL E-MEETING MARCH 26 9PM-11PM EASTERN

[Richard Longstreth]

Alicia does have some points in the 12 days and time arena, but I believe
the motion itself passed correctly. I believe the secretary may have set
the meeting up incorrectly.

In the original ask the time and subject were included. I'm happy to move
this meeting two days sooner as we passed. There should be no other issues
beyond that. The reason I'm not in arms over the date is because it was
proposed and passed on the same day with the language of starting 10 days
after passing. None of the cosponsors sponsored on a different day so there
cannot be any implied confusion on what the cosponsors passed.

Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 07:17 Richard Longstreth <richard.longstreth at lp.org>
wrote:

> I cosponsored the proposed meeting, time, and subject. Because no changes
> were made to the original ask, and how email threads work, I thought
> everything was implied. If the members of this body would rather a minimum
> of six separate email threads calling for this meeting, with debate
> occurring in each, I would be happy to comply. Just let me know how formal
> we would like to be on a call that received 8 cosponsors, all not making
> changes to the original motion thus implicitly echoing the time, date,
> subject matter, etc.
>
> I feel the policy manual requirements were met and defer to the chair to
> make a decision otherwise.
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 04:13 Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Besides the detail of the subject matter, Mr. Goldstein already pointed
>> out
>> that our policy requires, "Each committee member calling for an electronic
>> meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee and specifying the
>> date
>> of the meeting, time of the meeting, meeting link including the identity
>> of
>> the Electronic Meeting Provider, and the topic(s) to be addressed."
>>
>> Yet the co-sponsors were obtained based on the topic, but not with the
>> other details specified.  In the middle of the process the original
>> requestor said the meeting would be set for 10 days from when the final
>> sponsor was obtained, at 9-11 pm Eastern on that date.  The final sponsor
>> was obtained on 03/14, but the call of the meeting is for 12 days later
>> rather than the 10 days later indicated.  There was no way for Dr. Lark to
>> know to ask for an earlier time to accommodate his 03/26 schedule conflict
>> before the meeting call was sent out, given that the information given to
>> him previously did not suggest 03/26 would be the resulting date.  Even if
>> it had been set for 10 days rather than 12, the fact that the date was not
>> locked by the sponsors in advance but was instead a floating relative date
>> meant that one had to predict when the final sponsor would develop to
>> check
>> their calendar for conflicts.
>>
>> This call-to-meeting changes the details after-the-fact.  The real impact
>> of not following the protocol established by our policy is to interfere
>> with one member's ability to fully participate.  This sort of thing is
>> exactly why the policy says the cosponsors must agree to all those
>> details.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 1:54 AM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think the subject matter given in this meeting notice is improperly
>> > broad.
>> >
>> > The initial sponsor of the idea started an email with a subject line
>> > referring only to "convention" and asked for a meeting to discuss this
>> > matter.  Mr. Goldstein asked for clarification of what matter.  The
>> > response was, "our contingency plans and status in light of the
>> pandemic."
>> >
>> > That was the given understanding when other LNC members agreed to join
>> the
>> > call of the meeting.  Yet this meeting notice says the subject is again
>> > just the very broad "convention" topic, rather than the narrowed answer
>> > which was given in that email thread.
>> >
>> > Some other topics that came up in that email thread go beyond the scope
>> of
>> > contingency plans and into brainstorming potential bylaws amendments on
>> > other topics not related to the stated purpose of the meeting.  I am
>> quite
>> > concerned that stating the topic as "convention" rather than "our
>> > contingency plans and status in light of the pandemic" could lead to
>> some
>> > trying to bring those subjects into the meeting, when that was not the
>> > purpose stated.
>> >
>> > I will object to topics other than "our contingency plans and status in
>> > light of the pandemic" as being outside of the scope of the special
>> meeting.
>> >
>> > -Alicia
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 5:25 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here is the Zoom information.  This meeting was sponsored by Hagan,
>> >> Harlos,
>> >> Longstreth, Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith, Van Horn
>> >>
>> >> Caryn Ann Harlos is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
>> >>
>> >> Topic: LNC Special Meeting Re: Convention
>> >> Time: Mar 26, 2020 09:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
>> >>
>> >> Join Zoom Meeting
>> >> https://zoom.us/j/239017962
>> >>
>> >> Meeting ID: 239 017 962
>> >>
>> >> One tap mobile
>> >> +13126266799,,239017962# US (Chicago)
>> >> +16465588656,,239017962# US (New York)
>> >>
>> >> Dial by your location
>> >>         +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
>> >>         +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
>> >>         +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
>> >>         +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
>> >>         +1 253 215 8782 US
>> >>         +1 301 715 8592 US
>> >> Meeting ID: 239 017 962
>> >> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adyM24yilG
>> >>
>> >> *  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.
>> *
>> >>
>> >
>>
>