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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms Mattson I do not believe I was rude.  It was not intended to be and
written carefully with an intent not to be.  So if you were offended I
apologize.  I however firmly believe my notice is correct and I leave that
to the decision of the chair.

I appreciate your tutelage.

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 6:07 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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. *
>
-- 

*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. *