[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