[Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms. Mattson is absolutely and utterly correct.  I would have put it more
strongly but then again, I am prone to highly colorful prose.    Can you
imagine the gall of the LNC actually trying to "force" us to follow our
bylaws?  This becomes clown world with each passing email.

*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. *



On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:34 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Well, I meant to send that to the COC email list, but I was going to come
> here and say pretty much the same thing.
>
> From this forwarded message below, Valerie Sarwark wrote to us:  "The
> Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing suppression of
> delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention."
>
> Force?  Suppression of delegates?  Those of differing opinions are
> attempting to achieve their desired result, too.  Is that force?
>
> We're getting a lot of email these days, and it's easy to skim and miss
> details, so I wanted to highlight this.  The demonizing of the COC is as
> shameful as it is absurd.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:28 PM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Forwarding for those of you not on the LNC.  The rhetoric being spewed
> > about the COC is becoming more and more outrageous.  There was quite a
> bit
> > of it flung around during the Bylaws and Rules Committee meeting today as
> > well...
> >
> > -Alicia
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> > Date: Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:01 PM
> > Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration
> > To: <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> > Cc: <justin.odonnell at lp.org>
> >
> >
> > Attached is a letter to the LNC from a Region 8 Member and New Hampshire
> > delegate for the LNC's consideration.
> >
> > Justin O'Donnell
> > LNC Region 8 Representative
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Valerie Sarwark
> > Date: May 3, 2020 2:55 PM
> > Subject: Request for LNC Consideration
> > To: Justin.Odonnell at lp.org
> > Cc: Pat.Ford at lp.org
> >
> > Justin,
> >
> > As my regional representative, please forward this letter to the LNC
> > business list.
> >
> > Pat,
> >
> > Thank you for your responsible "no" vote in yesterday's meeting.
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Dear Members of the Board,
> >
> > I am a delegate to the National Convention representing the state of New
> > Hampshire. This is the third convention to which I have the great
> privilege
> > of serving as a delegate.
> >
> > I would like you to strongly consider retaining the original convention
> > dates and move to an electronic business meeting. The nomination of
> > presidential ticket and LNC positions should be filled as soon as
> possible
> > to ensure we have the strongest start to Election Day (which is only 180
> > days from now).
> >
> > The Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing suppression
> > of delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention. The country
> is
> > in the middle of a pandemic with many states not even open for gatherings
> > of over 10 people. The country is in the middle of an economic collapse
> > with millions unemployed and unable to pay rent. You are now asking these
> > people to somehow rearrange their schedules, spend more money and
> > potentially put their lives at risk.
> >
> > In addition to the financial constraints on many of our delegates (the
> > majority of which are dues-paying members of the party), you are not
> > considering those affected by scheduling as far as their children. I have
> > spent YEARS as active as possible and trying to make the party a more
> > welcoming place for families. Although both my husband and I have been
> able
> > to work through this time, it seems financially irresponsible to drag the
> > entire family to a yet-to-be-determined site. With so many that are in
> the
> > same situation (or potentially worse off), would you feel comfortable
> > asking them to go into debt just so they can have their voices heard?
> >
> > We’ve all blocked this time. We’re all ready for this meeting. We all
> want
> > to participate but we are now being told that we have to reschedule
> > everything within a couple of weeks. We are in the middle of an emergency
> > and forcing people to shuffle their schedules, lives, and finances around
> > is quite ridiculous. This isn’t about courage or principles. This is
> about
> > doing the best thing for the delegates that represent the party. Other
> > political meetings with greater participants have already occurred.
> > Shouldn’t we show the world that we are serious, considerate, innovative
> > and ready to adapt?
> >
> > The best choice for some is not the best choice for all. An online
> > convention, held Memorial Day weekend, will not exclude delegates. You
> need
> > to consider the right thing to do for ALL of the delegates.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Valerie A. Sarwark
> >
> >
> >
>