<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think we're still waiting for Nick to respond to the concerns we raised (see thread below). </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>And I realize that I forgot David had offered a motion regarding the meeting. I will co-sponsor, David.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div><div> @StarchildSF</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Jan 15, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">So is the decision final for PA? And Pittsburgh? I need to make arrangements with my work which depend on my flight schedule.<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<br></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>On Jan 7, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I agree with you David. I would co-sponsor but I have no time to wordsmith unfortunately.</div><div><br></div><div>The self-funded sacrificial travel costs of over 15 persons (and what affiliates have been neglected) should be considered.</div><div><br></div><div>Two on the east side is not fair. Perhaps the Region 1 alternate could come this time if we didn't require across the country travel? Alternates closer can attend easily now two meetings giving those regions two voices- due to distance - Region 1 is at a disadvantage.</div><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM David Demarest <<a href="mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net">dpdemarest@centurylink.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">I have absolutely no concerns about Nick's and Robert's abilities to make a<br>wise decision (or recommendation) on the meeting location. I also understand<br>the need for a reasonably prompt location decision so we can get on with<br>travel and lodging arrangements. However, in addition to Starchild's<br>legitimate transparency concerns on proposal specifics, this top-down<br>approach makes a mockery of asking LNC members where they would like to hold<br>meetings. It suggests that meeting location criteria are driven primarily by<br>LNC staff preferences and travel costs paid from the LNC budget rather than<br>LNC member preferences and self-funded travel expenses. Further, I strongly<br>suspect that some LNC member location suggestions were expediently ignored<br>because no 2020/22 convention cost and suitability information had been<br>gathered for those locations.<br class="gmail_msg"><br>I would add that the essence of Libertarianism is to empower our leaders to<br>lead by example rather than the expediency of exercising authority. That is<br>not Nick's fault. We LNC members are to blame if we cave in to the<br>temptation to default our responsibilities to Nick when not appropriate and<br>put Nick in a lose-lose dilemma. Nick handles it well but it is unfair to<br>both Nick and the full complement of LNC members. I would agree that the<br>meeting location is not a high-priority issue. Nevertheless, it presents an<br>excellent opportunity to set an example by empowering LNC members to select<br>meeting locations. Or we can call this discussion nitpicking and continue<br>our top-down failings that fly in the face of our criticisms of the broken<br>two-party system.<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><br>I offer the following motion:<br class="gmail_msg"><br>"Hold a simple LNC email write-in approval vote to narrow down our personal<br>meeting location preferences followed by a second simple approval vote on<br>the top 3 to 5 choices considering the astute finance and logistics<br>recommendations by Robert and Nick."<br class="gmail_msg"><br>Robert and Nick, thank you for your location research diligence, wise<br>recommendations and ability to shoulder our defaulted responsibilities. The<br>above motion could be simplified to one approval email vote if sufficient<br>location cost and site suitability details and recommendations were<br>available. Any interest in co-sponsoring this motion? If so, who would like<br>to wordsmith this motion into the proper language? Or, do we want to move on<br>to more critical LNC issues and address the meeting location selection<br>method at a more convenient time?<br class="gmail_msg"><br>Thoughts?<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><br>~David Pratt Demarest<br>Region 6 LNC Representative<br class="gmail_msg"><br><br class="gmail_msg"><br>-----Original Message-----<br class="gmail_msg"><br>From: Lnc-business [mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] On Behalf Of Starchild<br>Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 7:52 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] April LNC Meeting location<br class="gmail_msg"><br> So what IS the proposal, Nick? May we see the full terms? You<br>present this as if a decision has already been made. Isn't it up to the full<br>LNC to decide where to meet? To be clear, I have no pre-existing objection<br>to Pittsburgh or preference for another location. I am simply concerned<br>about process.<br class="gmail_msg"><br> Has any effort been made to use official communications (email,<br>direct mail, website, LP News, Facebook, etc.) to let our membership know<br>that we're looking for free or low-cost venues suitable for an LNC meeting?<br class="gmail_msg"><br>Love & Liberty,<br class="gmail_msg"><br> ((( starchild )))</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee<br> (415) 625-FREE<br> @StarchildSF<br class="gmail_msg"><br><br class="gmail_msg"><br><br class="gmail_msg"><br>On Jan 6, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Nicholas Sarwark wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Dear All,<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Robert Kraus has done some excellent work getting proposals from<br>> numerous locations around the country, some that would be suitable for<br>> a potential 2020/22 convention, others not. Based on a combination of<br>> overall cost, accessibility, site suitability, and having a meeting<br>> where we haven't lately, it came down to Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, or<br>> Oklahoma City.<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Of the three, Pittsburgh had the best overall proposal, so I intend to<br>> have Robert negotiate a contract for the April meeting to be held in<br>> Pittsburgh at the Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh. Indianapolis was overly<br>> costly on the venue side and Oklahoma City overly costly on the travel<br>> side.<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Don't purchase tickets or make reservations until Robert has final<br>> details. Also, there will likely be a hotel/meeting space tour,<br>> either on Friday prior to the meeting or on Saturday or Sunday after<br>> the meeting.<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Yours in liberty,<br class="gmail_msg"><br>> Nick<br class="gmail_msg"></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>