[Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

[Richard Longstreth]

Ms Harlos. You do not speak for everyone. It was a general statement put
out to us all. Each can determine their own thoughts and say what they want
for themselves. You are beginning to develop this habit of speaking for
others or implying motives or intents and it has to stop. No response was
needed by anyone until the ExComm meeting, if questioned.

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, 12:35 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> No one has.
>
> *  In Liberty,*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:15 AM Richard Longstreth <
> richard.longstreth at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Do not put words into my mouth. I am specifically asking that if someone
>> has made up their mind on this without any sort of investigation, they
>> should be forthright with that. Being open to debate is obviously not the
>> same thing.
>>
>> 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, 04:27 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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,*
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>