[Lnc-business] Impartiality of Chair

[Richard Longstreth]

Sigh.

Paragraph 1 - John was a declared candidate which is a specific nuanced
difference in my mind. We as an LNC practice not supporting any candidate
until after nomination. Many of this board extend that to their own
personal views. I am one of them.

Paragraph 2&3 - I cannot cite my personal opinion and how I exercise my
role in Roberts or the PM because, obviously, it is my personal viewpoint
and opinion. Also, I never said I would or wanted to impose my viewpoint on
other people, I just shared it with the group. I do not want to amend our
policy manual in this way.

Paragraph 4 - How you describe your pacifist views seems similar to my
views on this which is why I will not bring forward a policy manual or
other rule change. I will also not chastise the chair or yourself for being
vocal on this.

If the chair advocates for a specific position and he is holding the gavel,
I expect him to turn it over or the delegates to demand he do such. As a
delegate I have personal thoughts, as an LNC member, I'm not going to be
supporting a call to censure or anything like that based on someone taking
a poll. I am already fighting members of my region on calling a censure on
another member of this board for broadcasting that they will not execute
their duty. My reasoning for not pursuing that is the same for not pursuing
this any further, at this time: times are heated, opinions are strong, all
are operating from a place that they feel is best for the party, nobody has
caused any actual harm as far as I can tell. We all have opinions and say
things in the moment we maybe shouldn't. As Mr Merced said in our meeting,
I wish we could come from a place of working together and forgiveness to
get what needs to be done, done.

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, 07:16 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> No one else is required to be impartial.  That is not an interpretation
> that bears weight unless you want to provide a policy manual revision.  Or
> should John Phillips not have supported his own race?
>
> The chair is a position of great honour with special responsibilities.
> Others have much much more latitude.  Please site me in RONR or our policy
> manual where that impartiality is required of anyone else.  That may be
> your personal conviction, and I respect that, but you cannot impose that on
> other people.
>
> We are allowed to get on the mic and debate as well.  The chair is not.
> You are free to your strict interpretation but to impose that on other
> people, no, that is not proper.
>
> On this post we are dealing with RONR and our policy manual where relevant
> (it isn't here).  And RONR does not hold your view in order to give it
> binding authority on other.  I view your position something akin to my
> pacifism.  I hold that view.  It is quite strict.  I wish everyone was a
> pacificist. But I do not chastise those who are not as lethal self defense
> is a fundamental right that I have no place to demand they set aside lest
> they seem less ethical than me.
>
> *  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 Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:04 AM Richard Longstreth <
> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>> > > >> *
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>