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

[Steven Nekhaila]

Mr. Merced is correct,

The Chair stated what his ruling of the Chair would be, if it came to a 
vote regarding the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a body, we still need to make a decision according to our rules using 
our best individual judgements to come to a conclusion.

Nothing has changed.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
Libertarian National Committee

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

On 2020-05-07 04:08 PM, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business 
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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> 
>>