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

Thu Mar 26 13:53:28 EDT 2020

Hello Dan,

Is there a call in line for us to join?

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
Libertarian National Committee

Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"

On 2020-03-25 02:52 PM, Daniel Fishman via Lnc-business wrote:
> Confirming that this meeting is still on for tomorrow at 9pm Eastern. I 
> am
> planning on attending and asking Ms. Desisto and Mr Kraus to listen in 
> as
> well.
> 
> Dan
> ---
> Daniel Fishman
> Executive Director
> The Libertarian Party
> Join Us <http://www.lp.org/join>
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:54 PM Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 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. *
>> 