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

[Alicia Mattson]

The rude and dismissive responses I got from John and Caryn Ann are about
as effective as gun control advocates telling libertarians to shut up and
stop being a PITA about their precious second amendment rights.

It is not petty or trivial for me to insist that when we are scheduling a
meeting that it is important for LNC members to know what dates are being
proposed so they can check for schedule conflicts.

Also, the discussion thread said it would be a 2-hour meeting, but the call
of the meeting lists only a start time with no mention of an end time 2
hours later.

I don't understand the strawman critiques that I am allegedly objecting
about having a meeting on subject X, when I clearly was saying I will
object to subjects OTHER THAN X being brought up during the meeting.

So is the meeting going to be the 24th or the 26th?

-Alicia


On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 9:34 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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. *
>
>
>