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

Sun Mar 15 18:05:08 EDT 2020

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. *
>