[Lnc-business] NOTICE OF SPECIAL E-MEETING MARCH 26 9PM-11PM EASTERN
Tim Hagan
tim.hagan at lp.org
Sun Mar 15 18:07:17 EDT 2020
I thought the e-mail system had caught the coronavirus. I'm disinfecting
my computer so it won't spread to me.
---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2020-03-15 14:52, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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