[Lnc-business] NOTICE OF SPECIAL E-MEETING MARCH 26 9PM-11PM EASTERN
francis.wendt at lp.org
francis.wendt at lp.org
Mon Mar 16 16:21:37 EDT 2020
It appears the email server is glitching again. I got repeated emails from
both John and Caryn Ann. Dan, is there a fix to this?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Sam
Goldstein via Lnc-business
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 3:52 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Cc: Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] NOTICE OF SPECIAL E-MEETING MARCH 26 9PM-11PM
EASTERN
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