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

Sam Goldstein sam.goldstein at lp.org
Mon Mar 16 16:53:26 EDT 2020 

I was in contact with Ken Moelmann last night about this.  Hopefully he 
gets it resolved when he is freed from the chains of his paying job 
later today.

---
Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2020-03-16 16:21, francis.wendt at lp.org wrote:
> 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