[Lnc-business] Update from Illinois

[Susan Hogarth]

 These points, and others, are why I would like us to have an informal meeting   to help sort things out.   
  

  
As for sunk costs and fundraising, if we did think the meeting was medically unsound, the idea that we’d ask delegates to show up so that we can ask them for money strikes me as somewhat callous.   
  

  
As for changing the will of the delegates - we’ve been selected to make decisions for the membership. If the building burned down we wouldn’t insist on holding a meeting in the ashes because the ‘members voted for it’ at some time in the past. We’d make the call. We’d have to. That’s what we’re here for.   
  

  
You can argue, as some have, that we are not trying to have a meeting in the ashes of a burned-out building - that we aren’t in an impossible situation.    I respect that argument, but if we’re not there yet, we’re awfully close.   
  

  
Many delegates have expressed a sentiment of feeling as if they *have* to show up, if only to allow for remote voting. If we don’t reject the changes Rosen is forcing on us, we ought *at least* to alleviate the fears that delegates will not be able to participate and that the convention will be a meeting of the three hundred least responsible members of the Party. Let us agree that every verified delegate who chooses to participate is counted as a delegate from the first gavel, and let us announce that far and wide. THEN delegates can truly have a choice of whether to travel or not. That may (may...) lead to less anger and frustration between ‘goers’ and ‘stayers’. It will also save a ton of time voting on remote participation. Will such a decision be challenged? Likely, but a challenge is much more easily handled than a de novo motion for remote participation.    
  
  
  
  
  Susan Jane Hogarth
  
  Region 5 Representative
  
  Libertarian National Committee
  
  susan.hogarth at lp.org
  
  919-906-2106 (tel:919-906-2106)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jul 1, 2020 at 3:20 PM,  <Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business (mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  It would be silly to ask the delegates a question about whether they approve of the move from Shingle Creek to Rosen Centre, as it is only one dimension of a multi-dimensional decision. They don't have the information to know whether it's an apples-to-apples deal, what the financial implications are for the party if we don't accept it. They'll likely say no because Shingle Creek is a nicer place, and why wouldn't they prefer a nicer place? That's all they'll consider if we asked such a question. It's a lovely thought that we can just recover damages from Rosen, but in reality we could easily be out-of-pocket as much in litigation costs as we'd recover in damages, and it could take a couple of years to do that. Even if we also recovered litigation costs, we'd be out the cash in the meantime, and we don't really have cash to spare. The COC has little choice but to proceed with the assumption that we're moving ahead with Orlando. The LNC has not cancelled. The hotel is offering us  an alternative at a facility we have previously found to be acceptable (though we didn't use the OCCC in 2016). Some delegate room reservations start in 2 days. Other delegates are on the verge of starting to drive or take trains to Orlando. We are having to incur some costs this week, else we lose the opportunity to have those things happen at all when the convention proceeds. It is hard to pin down the financial result if the event were to be cancelled. Some expenditures can't be recovered unless the hotel is made to repay us for them. We don't know how many delegates would ask for refunds. Because of the terms of our credit card processing contract, we would eat the credit card fees on those refunds. We don't have the cash to refund all the funds collected because even after I pointed out that the convention funds were being raided for deficit spending in party operations, the LNC would not act quickly to stop the problem from getting worse...and it did get worse before the  LNC finally acted. We would lose the opportunity for general party fundraising which is often a large boost to our ballot access efforts in presidential years. It's all a giant question mark, but it leans toward negative impact. It is the duty of LNC members to weigh all of these factors and many more (like impact on delegates with sunk costs) and not just make a knee-jerk reaction to a single factor. Managing the party assets is one of our key duties. The LNC is not in great financial shape. The best financial result for us is to either have them honor the Shingle Creek deal, or accept an alternative with Rosen Centre / OCCC so long as we aren't responsible for costs we would not have incurred in the original deal. The COC has a bullet list from last night's meeting for what else they need to do for us, and I know that is being actively addressed today. -Alicia On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:58 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business  <  lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  wrote:  >  I do think it is highly possible to recover those costs from Rosen.  >  Nothing is a slam dunk in the legal word. I want to be clear - I think  >  they dealt us dirty and that Mr. Rosen blew smoke up our rears and broke a  >  promise. I keep hearing we cannot cancel because we will taint that  >  relationship. It is already tainted by his breaking his word. He put us  >  in this situation. That is a simple fact, and I do not forgive that.  >   >  That does not excuse us however from fulfilling the vote of the delegates,  >  but have no doubts, I will want to pursue the fullest recovery from Rosen  >  if it comes to that.  >   >  *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 Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM erin.adams--- via Lnc-business  <   >  lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  wrote:  >   >   >  For US to pay *  >   >   >   >  Erin Adams Region 7 alt.  >   >   >   >  On Jul 1, 2020 12:41 PM, erin.adams at lp.org wrote:  >   >   >   >  I think they are obligated to pay US because they are in breech in an  >   >  amount sufficient for US to AVG and other incurred expenses  >   >   >   >  Erin Adams Region 7 alt.  >   >   >   >  On Jul 1, 2020 12:38 PM, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business  <   >   >  lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  wrote:  >   >   >   >  Do you think that Rosen is obligated to pay AVG if they are in breach?  >   >  I'd love to hear a legal opinion from Mr. Hall about what we could  >   >  recover from Rosen with or without litigation.  >   >   >   >  ---  >   >  Sam Goldstein, At Large Member  >   >  Libertarian National Committee  >   >  Convention Oversight Committee  >   >  317-850-0726 Cell  >   >   >   >  On 2020-07-01 13:07, Daniel Fishman wrote:  >   >   >   >   >  That just ain't so Sam -- unless we agree to accept their alternative,  >   >  they are in breach. Our reason is we want to be at Shingle Creek which  >  was  >   >  what they promised. And they aren't going to give it to us.  >   >   >   >   >   >  I think a poll of the delegates is warranted. I'm adding Tim's  >   >  language. I welcome other suggestions.  >   >   >   >   >   >  ---  >   >   >  Daniel Fishman  >   >   >  Executive Director  >   >   >  The Libertarian Party  >   >   >  Join Us [1]  >   >   >   >   >   >  On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:51 PM Sam Goldstein  <sam.goldstein at lp.org>   >   >  wrote:  >   >   >   >   >   >>  Perhaps you should include in that poll the LP will be in the hole  >   >   >>  somewhere over $100k if we cancel at this late date just because we  >   >  want  >   >   >>  to without a reason covered by the Force Majeure clause in the AVG  >   >   >>  contract in addition to other costs.  >   >   >>   >   >   >>  ---  >   >   >>  Sam Goldstein, At Large Member  >   >   >>  Libertarian National Committee  >   >   >>  Convention Oversight Committee  >   >   >>  317-850-0726 Cell  >   >   >>   >   >   >>  On 2020-07-01 12:39, Daniel Fishman via Lnc-business wrote:  >   >   >>>  Suggested poll to the delegates:  >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>  1 - Are you currently planning to attend the second sitting  >  in-person?  >   >   >>>  2 -  >   >   >>>  Do you support: - Relocating the second sitting to the Orange County  >   >   >>>  Convention Center - Cancellation of the in-person second sitting and  >   >   >>>  resuming business online  >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>  ---  >   >   >>>  Daniel Fishman  >   >   >>>  Executive Director  >   >   >>>  The Libertarian Party  >   >   >>>  Join Us  <http://www.lp.org/join>   >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>  On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:17 PM William Redpath via Lnc-business  <   >   >   >>>  lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  wrote:  >   >   >>>   >   >   >>>>  I just spoke with LPIL Chair and Delegation Chair Steve Suess. The  >   >   >>>>  LPIL  >   >   >>>>  had a full slate of 37 delegates for the national convention. Of  >   >   >>>>  those,  >   >   >>>>  he says, now only 5 are going to Orlando (I know, probably not all  >  37  >   >   >>>>  would have gone to Austin, but still...). And, we've got a week to  >   >  go  >   >   >>>>  for possible further attrition.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  I don't know the economics of this convention well enough to  >   >   >>>>  prognosticate what the LNC should do to maximize its gain or  >  minimize  >   >   >>>>  its loss from this convention, but could it be that cancellation is  >   >   >>>>  the  >   >   >>>>  least bad financial option at this point? I don't know. I will  >   >  leave  >   >   >>>>  it to Bette Rose, et al. to number crunch that.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  A fair amount has been made on this list about potential delegate  >   >   >>>>  personal financial losses. As sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say,  >   >   >>>>  "Let's go to the videotape!"  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  Delegates can ask for their convention package payment back (many  >   >  will  >   >   >>>>  not, and fewer will, if we ask nicely). They can cancel the hotel  >  at  >   >   >>>>  no  >   >   >>>>  penalty at this time. They may not get a refund from their airline  >   >   >>>>  ticket but will almost certainly get full credit on a future ticket  >   >  to  >   >   >>>>  be used over the next year or two. I think very few people would  >   >   >>>>  suffer  >   >   >>>>  economic loss, and there might be a net economic gain if the  >  employed  >   >   >>>>  save some vacation days.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  Don't necessarily look to hotel reservations to judge attendance. I  >   >   >>>>  surmise that many reservations have not been cancelled yet.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  The "Will of the Delegates" did vote for a second sitting in  >   >   >>>>  Orlando--over a tenth of a year ago. A lot has happened since then  >   >   >>>>  that  >   >   >>>>  could not have been foreseen.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  Yes, some people are speaking up loudly on both sides of this issue,  >   >   >>>>  but  >   >   >>>>  what does the actual body of delegates think NOW? That is the truly  >   >   >>>>  relevant question, and if it is to go forward with the second  >  sitting  >   >   >>>>  in  >   >   >>>>  Orlando, so be it. However, if that were to occur without remote  >   >   >>>>  access, so that delegates can participate in the convention from  >   >   >>>>  wherever they are, that would have very harmful ramifications for  >  the  >   >   >>>>  LP.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  I do think a poll of the delegates should be taken again ASAP to  >   >   >>>>  ascertain across all delegations #1) what are their current  >   >  attendance  >   >   >>>>  plans?, and #2) do they want the second sitting to occur July 9-12?  >   >  I  >   >   >>>>  think #1 is far more important than #2 in forming a decision. After  >   >   >>>>  all, what is going to happen if only one-seventh of the credentialed  >   >   >>>>  delegates show?  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  I think all of us greatly respect the convention knowledge and very  >   >   >>>>  hard  >   >   >>>>  work of the COC for both Austin and Orlando, and I would very much  >   >   >>>>  regret little to nothing ultimately coming of it in 2020. But, I  >   >   >>>>  think  >   >   >>>>  there is still time, for the overall good of the Libertarian Party,  >   >  to  >   >   >>>>  get a good handle on what all of the delegates are thinking right  >   >  now,  >   >   >>>>  and that could be effected very quickly.  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  Bill Redpath  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>  On 2020-06-30 23:09, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >>>>>  You remember I already did that ;)  >   >   >>>>>   >   >   >>>>>  Teasing aside, I 100% support this and wholeheartedly sign on.  >   >  Thank you  >   >   >>>>>   >   >   >>>>>  John Phillips  >   >   >>>>>  Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative  >   >   >>>>>  Cell 217-412-5973  >   >   >>>>>   >   >   >>>>>  On Jun 30, 2020 11:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business  <   >   >   >>>>  lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  wrote:  >   >   >>>>>   >   >   >>>>>>  I call upon my fellow LNC members to promise to support and work  >   >  for  >   >   >>>>  remote  >   >   >>>>>>  participation if the in person convention goes forward.  >   >   >>>>>>   >   >   >>>>>>  I do so pledge.  >   >   >>>>>>   >   >   >>>>>>  * 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. *  >   >   >>>>   >   >   >   >   >   >  Links:  >   >  ------  >   >  [1] http://www.lp.org/join  >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   
>
>