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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

We HAVE decided no matter how much our Chair would prefer that we did not.
I do respect being peace makers but there comes a time when it turns into
Solomon's baby and it ends up gas-lighting those who say, Houston, there is
a problem.  Our Chair has gone beyond the role of a presiding officer and
is having an extended tantrum about not getting his way.

*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 9:04 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Steven and Alex I love you guys but it clearly says it IS his ruling, not
> what his ruling would be.
>
> This is in direct contradiction to his statements around my complaint
> during the membership affair.
>
> I do appreciate you trying to be peace makers though. Much respect.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 7, 2020 8:50 PM, Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>