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

Thu May 7 16:30:52 EDT 2020

You cannot have a ruling without a pending motion.  There is none.  What we
do know is that our chair has been nonstop trying to undermine the LNC
decision since the moment it was made.

*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 2:08 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via
Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> From what I understand Nicks post is an indication of a potential ruling
> not an edict which means...
>
> - it can be challenged if needed
>
> - doesn’t change the motion currently passed last Saturday
>
> - Doesnt force any action by the LNC on Saturday.
>
> So technically nothing has changed yet? Or am I wrong?
>
> Technically does an email declaration of a ruling not yet asked for have
> any weight? So if we theoretically passed a motion that was challenged,
> wouldn’t Nick have to make this ruling explicitly again at which point it
> would be challenged?
>
> If this is correct wouldn’t the previous email really just be Nick making
> clear how he will rule if that comes to be or am I misreading this?
>
> If it’s an edict unilaterally changing or forcing an action by the LNC
> that’s a problem (the wording doesn’t say that from my reading), if it’s an
> indication of how a chair will rule if a particular conflict arises well
> then it just gives time for those who’d challenge the ruling to be more
> prepared.
>
> I’m just trying to clarify before we escalate beyond where we are actually
> at in this process.
>
> Alex Merced
> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
>
> > On May 7, 2020, at 3:55 PM, joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I would ask that the Chairman of this board either resign if he can no
> longer fairly respect the will of the board with impartiality, or go back
> to being the impartial mediator that he is elected to be.
> >
> > The Chairman is not elected to push his own agenda on the board, or the
> membership, and with each passing day it looks more and more like the
> Chairman has overstepped the duties entrusted in him by those very people.
> >
> >
> > In liberty,
> > Joshua
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 7, 2020 2:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > I have a question for the body.  I believe that the entire LNC is not
> being
> > represented by our general counsel but rather Mr. Sarwark is.  Do we
> have
> > any recourse to ask for additional counsel?  This is pretty outrageous,
> > that I would join in costs if other LNC members felt we needed
> > representation due to this usurping of power by our Chair.  I have said
> for
> > two years now there are no officers in this party other than our Chair.
> > Now there is effectively no LNC.  Figureheads would be a promotion.
> >
> > *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 1:35 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I too would like to know how the "vast majority" was determined.  Our
> > > largest affiliate California has instructed the LNC otherwise.
> Colorado is
> > > nothing to sneeze at and there is nothing preventing us from
> attending.
> > >
> > > Respect the decision of the LNC.  You are presiding officer not
> overlord.
> > > If you insist on putting our general counsel in the untenable position
> of
> > > rendering a parliamentarian opinion, I will be moving that the LNC
> retain
> > > and actual PRP.
> > >
> > > I do not know what has caused this strange shift of behaviour but this
> is
> > > not the very tempered behaviour of the Chair I have worked with for
> four
> > > years now who knew how to respect the hierarchy in place and accept
> things
> > > he thought were bad decisions.  You are free to appeal to the Judicial
> > > Committee l like anyone else.  You are not free to disregard the LNC
> and
> > > usurp all power to yourself.
> > >
> > > *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 1:32 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Our counsel is not a parliamentarian.  I am aghast he would offer an
> > >> opinion outside his area of speciality.  No parliamentarian would
> render
> > >> that opinion.  If anyone decided to sue over this, I firmly believe
> Mr.
> > >> Hall would be in danger of malpractice.  This LNC is in dereliction
> of its
> > >> duty by not retaining a PRP for that determination.  Further, you do
> not
> > >> have authority as Chair to override the decision of the LNC.  This
> has gone
> > >> beyond a ridiculous power grab.  The LNC has decided.  Period.
> > >>
> > >> *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 12:55 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business <
> > >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nick, how do you intend to demonstrate that it will be "impossible"
> for a
> > >>> "vast majority" of the delegates to travel to a convention in July?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:36 PM Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
> > >>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 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
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> *Whitney Bilyeu*
> > >>> Libertarian National Committee
> > >>> Region 7 Representative
> > >>> 281.433.4966
> > >>> LP.ORG
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>