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

Fri May 8 03:13:04 EDT 2020

Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not
giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory.  Paralegals
know to do that also.  It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface
with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.

-Alicia

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>