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

Thu Mar 26 21:02:22 EDT 2020

I can't get into this meeting.  I am told that it is full.

On 2020-03-26 14:36, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business wrote:
> Here's what was sent out earlier - I'm sure if it's changed or wrong
> someone will let us know
> 
> 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
> 
> JBH
> 
> ------------
> Joe Bishop-Henchman
> LNC Member (At-Large)
> joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> 
> On 2020-03-26 13:53, Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business wrote:
>> 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. *
>>>> 