[Lnc-business] Impartiality of Chair

Mon May 11 10:04:15 EDT 2020

Fair enough if that is your interpretation. To be honest, any officer
voting in any of these polls violates the impartiality of this board to me.
The officers include the chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer as a
reminder. Regional representatives, I urge caution in participation because
it violates impartiality in representing your entire region. Really, only
at large members can vote on the types of polls, in my mind, without
violating impartiality unless, of course, they are seeking an officer or
regional role.

I understand that impartiality in this case is specifically referring to
chairing parts of the convention but on a larger level, the delegates now
have a choice to make on their own. We represent the delegates and should
not be skewing their opinions one way or another. It is a violation of
their right to dictate to us what they want.

I also understand that my view on impartiality is much more narrow than
some of my peers and always has been which is why I will stay quiet on all
these matters going forward and keep my thoughts to myself. Overall, I
think this entire board does a poor job of remaining impartial on delegate
matters. If the delegates view anyone's actions online as inappropriate
they will let it be known in a few short weeks and we have more important
things to focus on gearing up to that.

Richard Longstreth
Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
Libertarian National Committee
richard.longstreth at lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Mon, May 11, 2020, 06:25 <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the clarification Richard.  Tho I am not sure I agree that
> it is an improvement.  It at best it changes nothing and if someone wanted
> to put the worst possible spin on it, arguably worse.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 11, 2020 8:21 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Fellow LNC members,
>
> I feel we were presented with an example of only one thing the Chair voted
> on in that poll, not the full picture. I just found the same voting thread
> and want to share the other option Mr Sarwarck voted on (attached picture)
> in which he also says he will be attending and supporting the in person
> section as well. It is possible to hold both beliefs and I'm not sure this
> so much falls into bias given full context.
>
> Calls to demonize our chair are just as bad as our chair pushing an
> agenda.
> Be fair with each other. I will call out what I see but would hope that I
> would be presented with the whole story to judge fairly. Yes, Nick should
> remain impartial, however, by voting for multiple sides, he seems to be
> maintaining that to a degree.
>
> I still think it best that ALL of us remain neutral on such polling and
> let
> the body do as it does if it does. Painting each other or delegates as
> enemies of the party for disagreeing with your interpretation or viewpoint
> is very troublesome.
>
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020, 22:04 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > We've been snowed.  Simple as that.  There is no intent to honor the
> > hard-won compromise, and I am inclined to urge the LNC to take other
> action
> > as there is zero confidence in what was voted on.
> >
> > Let me give you all the simple reality here.  We are duty bound to
> consider
> > worst case scenario.  We have a bullshit online fiasco and get hit with
> 51
> > lawsuits AND no fundraising convention.  We are bankrupt.  Reality
> bites.
> > There are already actual party members ready to sue. I think that is
> > terrible, but it is real.
> >
> > The Adams motion is the route we should have taken.  Period.  End.  That
> is
> > the ONLY compromise that will stop these games, and I ask everyone where
> > they stand.  And if Chair Sarwark tries once again to insinuate "agree
> with
> > me or I will accept your resignation" don't let anyone face that alone
> as
> > we allowed Ms. Mattson to.  Shame on us.
> >
> > ONE person has consistently subverted the will of this body.  The one
> > person that should never do it.  Our chair.  Wake up.
> >
> > *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 9:43 PM Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at lp.org>
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If Chairman Sarwark truly wishes to convince the delegation to take
> > > action that would go against the motion the body set forward, I would
> > > implore him to announce his intentions now and allow Vice Chairman
> > > Merced to gavel the convention.
> > >
> > > Nick, please divulge your intentions to us.
> > >
> > > In Liberty,
> > >
> > > Steven Nekhaila
> > > Region 2 Representative
> > > Libertarian National Committee
> > >
> > > Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
> > > "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
> > >
> > > On 2020-05-10 11:35 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> > > > I know the rules Mr. Phillips.  Consult me privately if you wish to
> > > > know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me
> know.
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 9:33 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I am not even dead set against online and I agree this is
> > > >> inappropriate.
> > > >> Yet again.
> > > >>
> > > >> I find myself regretting both not pursuing my first question harder
> on
> > > >> Saturday rather than backing off, and my motion to cancel the next
> > > >> meeting.
> > > >>
> > > >> I honestly find myself wondering what options we have for
> disciplinary
> > > >> action at this point.  Yes I should be more familiar with such
> rules,
> > > >> but
> > > >> there it is.
> > > >>
> > > >> John Phillips
> > > >> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > > >> Cell 217-412-5973
> > > >>
> > > >> On May 10, 2020 10:17 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > > >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Mr. Chair, once again, I implore you to maintain the impartiality
> > > >> required.  I am concerned about your public pledge to support
> making
> > > >> amending the agenda on May 22 to make the entire convention online
> > > >> over
> > > >> the
> > > >> wishes of the LNC.
> > > >>
> > > >> See attached screenshot for pledge and Mr. Sarwark's name pledging
> to
> > > >> do
> > > >> so.
> > > >>
> > > >> It would be more convenient for me to stay silent.  Duty demands
> that
> > > >> I
> > > >> not
> > > >> be.
> > > >>
> > > >> *  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) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me
> know.
> > > >> *
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>