[Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Having an opinion already is not a reason for recusal.  That is utter
nonsense.  Particularly when all opinions are open for revision in debate
or with further information.  I bet JBH has an opinion.  I am shocked to
hear you think he should recuse himself.  I don't.

*  In Liberty,*



On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 3:25 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> No one is asking for a recusal.  This is standard RONR and required by
> RONR and a practice JBH has regularly followed for motions.  I am sure the
> Party Parliamentarian would be glad to advise the EC on this.
>
> *  In Liberty,*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:40 AM Richard Longstreth <
> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I leave that to the chair prerogative and do not join that call. I have
>> not seen a conflict of interest arise in his comments and a chair is
>> allowed to indulge the body with his thoughts provided they do not cross a
>> line into debate. We can obtain his viewpoint and explanation and his
>> integrity as chair does not need be compromised.
>>
>> Only someone who has already drawn conclusions or is receiving some sort
>> of benefit from the situation (financial or otherwise) should recuse
>> themselves from participation lest we appear to be a kangaroo court of
>> sorts. If that is any member of the ExComm I would expect them to
>> professionally declare so prior to beginning our meeting tomorrow.
>>
>> Richard Longstreth
>> At Large Representative
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> richard.longstreth at lp.org
>> 931.538.9300
>>
>> Sent from my Mobile Device
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 02:55 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I put it on the LNC list for transparency purposes.  Another case of no
>>> matter what I do certain people will want to villify it so I do what I
>>> think is right.  I do find it delicious how there is never any call for
>>> slow deliberation when it comes to attacking me.
>>>
>>> *  In Liberty,*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:37 AM Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This seems to be on the business list, thus a matter put before the
>>> LNC.
>>> > You should have put it on the excom list if that is who it was
>>> intended for.
>>> >
>>> > Francis Wendt
>>> > LNC Region 1 Representative
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------
>>> > *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 12:34:03 AM
>>> > *To:* Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org>
>>> > *Cc:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm
>>> >
>>> > Further this is a request to the voting members of the ex comm.  I
>>> could
>>> > have just put this on the EC list but did not.  But you quite literally
>>> > have no vote here.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:32 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> > carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is line with RONR and my right.  Are we denying member rights now?
>>> >
>>> > This is the proper course. I suggest you talk to a parliamentarian.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:17 AM Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is highly improper and not in line with the policy manual. Are we
>>> > literally making up up rules as we go?
>>> >
>>> > This is starting to look very very bad. LPNH falling to pieces is no
>>> > reason for us to do the same. In my brief absence it seems as if we
>>> just
>>> > threw the policy manual out the window.
>>> >
>>> > Francis Wendt
>>> > LNC Region 1 Representative
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------
>>> > *From:* Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> on behalf of
>>> Caryn
>>> > Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 12:10:20 AM
>>> > *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>> > *Cc:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>> > *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm
>>> >
>>> > I am asking the chair to not preside as his conduct is a main issue of
>>> > contention and for a chair pro tem for that meeting be appointed
>>> (which per
>>> > RONR will need approval from the body).  The chair pro tem need not be
>>> an
>>> > LNC member.  I recommend Dr Lark.--
>>> >
>>> > *  In Liberty,*
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > *  In Liberty,*
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > *  In Liberty,*
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>