[Lnc-business] [COC 2018-20] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration

Thu May 7 16:00:03 EDT 2020

I certainly want to discuss the legal issue of relying upon a
non-parliamentarian for a parliamentary opinion. That is beyond reckless.
And there is no pending point of order or motion for there to be a ruling.

*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 Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:40 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Dear Mr Chair,
>
> Back in December you stated a ruling of the chair only comes when someone
> has made an actual motion, specifically in response to me asking what your
> ruling would be and you not giving it until after the motion was made.
>
> If what you said back then is true we have a problem as there is currently
> no motion on the table regarding this.  So you either misled me, and thus
> board back then, or this ruling is itself out of order, and very
> potentially an abuse of authority then or now.
>
> And this is coming from me who AGREES with that ruling.
>
> Which leads into something I was waiting until Saturday for, but with this
> I will let everyone know that I intend to ask for immediately rising into
> executive session to discuss sensitive legal matters surrounding our
> decisions on this issue, and now including your ruling.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 7, 2020 1:49 PM, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
> How do you intend to implement your decision below in light of the fact
> that the LNC voted to postpone to a physical convention to be held no
> later than July 15th?
>
> Live Free,
>
> ---
> Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 Cell
>
> On 2020-05-07 14:36, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the
> > Libertarian
> > National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that “place” in the
> > bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it is
> > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the party
> > to
> > travel to a physical location.
> >
> > As such, a virtual convention held on Memorial Day weekend would be a
> > proper convention and compliant with the bylaws.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The COC's job is to plan a convention, in accordance with bylaws. The
> >> LNC
> >> is responsible for final decisions. No one is being forced to do
> >> anything,
> >> especially by the COC. It is not the COC's job to suggest a convention
> >> plan
> >> that is not in line with bylaws. The COC's job is to put together
> >> plans,
> >> offer options for the LNC to choose, and make suggestions where
> >> applicable.
> >>
> >> The LNC could have moved to change plans at any time...it didn't. The
> >> LNC
> >> could have voted this past Saturday to do something other than
> >> postpone......It didn't.
> >>
> >> If an LNC member wants something other than an in-person convention,
> >> in
> >> accordance with bylaws, they should move such. The LNC will
> >> decide.....again.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:36 AM BetteRose via Conventions <
> >> conventions at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I believe it was the LNC that voted for the in person convention. The
> CoC
> >> > may have 'pushed' for that outcome but we didn't make the final
> decision.
> >> >
> >> > My concern is, that as deaths continue to rise we may again have to
> find
> >> > another venue and move the convention once again.  This will be hard
> on
> >> > most of the delegates and won't play well in the press.  I see that
> the
> >> > Democrats are already having trouble with that same issue.
> >> >
> >> > BetteRose Ryan
> >> > Publisher
> >> > Bent Briar Publishing <http://www.bentbriarbooks.com/>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Alicia Mattson via Conventions <conventions at hq.lp.org>
> >> > To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> >> > Cc: Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>; Convention Oversight
> >> > Committee <conventions at hq.lp.org>
> >> > Sent: Sun, May 3, 2020 11:34 pm
> >> > Subject: Re: [COC 2018-20] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC
> >> > Consideration
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Conventions mailing list
> >> > Conventions at hq.lp.org
> >> > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Conventions mailing list
> >> > Conventions at hq.lp.org
> >> > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>