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

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

I received:

9 copies of John Phillip's recent email. All time stamped 12:43.

9 copies of Caryn Ann Harlos' recent email.  All time stamped 10:27

No idea what's going on with email.  But, something is.



---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)


On 2020-03-15 18:05, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
> S, I only received it once. Maybe our email glitch is back again...
> 
> 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, 14:52 Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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. *
>>