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

Sam Goldstein sam.goldstein at lp.org
Sun Mar 15 18:32:15 EDT 2020


Ha!  I just got your twice.  Our email is multiplying aster than the
damn virus. 

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

On 2020-03-15 18:05, Richard Longstreth 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. *


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list