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

Sam Goldstein sam.goldstein at lp.org
Sun Mar 15 17:52:25 EDT 2020 

John, 

I know from your email that you are tired and irritable, but did you
have to send the email 6 times? 

Stay Free!

---
Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell 

On 2020-03-15 12:34, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:

> I am tired. I am irritable.  I am frustrated. So I probably should not speak at all. But since much of my frustration is with this crap here you go. 
> 
> The intention was clear to the co-sponsors, suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Stop with the damn rules lawyering obstructionist BS.  Are there times it is appropriate, yes, but 90% of the time it is being thrown out there to forward some personal agenda, or just satisfy some deep OCD issues.  Give it an effen rest. 
> 
> It is clear that enough members of the body desire a discussion.  It is clear that enough members of the party would like this discussion to happen. 
> 
> I very personally will suggest that if you spend half or more of your time trying being petty over dotted i's and crossed t's that make no real difference - allowing for the times it actually does - that perhaps every now and then step back and realize that it really doesnt mean a damn thing and you are just being a PITA for nothing. 
> 
> Yes I am aware of the hypocrisy of this after the crap I gave about civility, but enough is damn well enough. 
> 
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973 
> 
> On Mar 15, 2020 9:27 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
>> I had today's date wrong in my head as I am traveling lol over the country 
>> and barely know what state I am in. 
>> 
>> I will let the chair decide if it's correct. 
>> 
>> This to me is an example of using the rules to make things difficult for no 
>> real purpose.  And I simply won't waste time on that.  Everyone knows the 
>> intent and everyone knows the date was to accommodate the ten day notice 
>> period without being wayyyy out.  The fact that one angel isn't dancing on 
>> the pin head is not relevant IMHO.  It is apparent that a certain 
>> contingent doesn't want a meeting and that is fine - but some of us do and 
>> I stand by my call. 
>> 
>> The chair can unilaterally reset at his choice and I would welcome it. 
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:23 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business < 
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote: 
>> 
>>> 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. 
>>>>> * 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> *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. *

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list