<div dir='auto'>I am not inclined to just let this lay. Too many issues. I suggest that we indeed start over and this time, do things properly and above board. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I find it ironic that tonight I'll be the one to say Carry that water, yet that is what Im saying</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 28, 2019 9:49 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Mr Longstreth. Enough is enough. I have no more benefit of the doubt to
<br>
give. This isn’t a matter of being 100%, it’s a matter of not even being a
<br>
Party member.
<br>
<br>
Our objections were clear.
<br>
<br>
The intent of the policy manual is clear.
<br>
<br>
The fact that we are intentionally blind-sided is clear.
<br>
<br>
The fact she is not qualified - to me - is clear and to the numerous angry
<br>
member phone calls I’ve fielded is clear.
<br>
<br>
The fact that smoke is being blown up my behind about a MA politico having
<br>
no ties to Weld (that’s impossible) is clear.
<br>
<br>
The fact that this is just another in a long series of completely improper
<br>
entanglements never disclosed to the LNC is clear.
<br>
<br>
Did we give authority to hire a co tractor that would require no approval?
<br>
<br>
WE DO NOT PLANT LIBERTY SEEDS WITH OUR DONOR LIST. This is not
<br>
evangelism. I can’t believe I even have to say that.
<br>
<br>
I’m second guessing remaining a donor at this point, and that’s pathetic.
<br>
<br>
There’s been too much “oh well what’s done is done.”
<br>
<br>
You know what’s done? My tolerance for this.
<br>
<br>
And we’ve never received an answer to whether Mr Fishman was paid to plan
<br>
for COAC. Why even an unpaid was never disclosed? Either a disclosure or
<br>
denial that Mr Sarwark was offered - even if wink wink informally - a job
<br>
with Mr Weld prior to trying to get a paid position with the party funded
<br>
by unnamed donors.
<br>
<br>
The cumulative case stinks and I’m done sweeping it under the rug.
<br>
<br>
And - I’m trying to word this in a non-rude manner - I don’t think Region 1
<br>
shares your sentiments. Perhaps they do. I’ve been out of the loop. I am
<br>
pretty sure that LPCO is not. I am medium sure LPWA is not - the two
<br>
largest constituencies.
<br>
<br>
Dan and Nick are not victims here. And our questioning is not harassing
<br>
them. It is doing our duty and it’s about time we all started doing it.
<br>
<br>
We were not told the truth about Lauren. Never forget that.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:02 PM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
<br>
lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> Too many threads out there. I'm going to break this down as simply as I can
<br>
> and put it here and here only. I have feelings on all of this but if I take
<br>
> a step back, here is how I am seeing things at this point. It is ok if you
<br>
> disagree but let's figure out the next steps.
<br>
>
<br>
> 1) A contract was offered and was sent to the EPCC even though that part of
<br>
> the PM deals with 'Directors'. The role in question was changed to a
<br>
> contracted director (read contractor) and so there is definitely some grey
<br>
> as to how all of this should have been handled. I also note the lack of
<br>
> clear definitions. If the contract was required to be submitted, it did not
<br>
> receive approval but if it was for a contractor, no approval needed. News
<br>
> flash: our policy manual needs some work to fix and clarify these things
<br>
> for the future. Mr. O'Donnell had several suggestions at a previous meeting
<br>
> and it may be worth revisiting them.
<br>
>
<br>
> 2) Our new DD is not 100% in line with our philosophies. I agree that this
<br>
> is a concern, however, I would also note that very rarely does someone
<br>
> score a 10-10 on the Nolan quiz and we still welcome them into our folds
<br>
> and plant more liberty seeds along the way. The selected candidate meets
<br>
> all of the criteria that we voted on and approved, albeit, the feeling of
<br>
> the room was clear, but it was not in our explicit direction. Do I wish she
<br>
> was more libertarian, absolutely - I look forward to getting to know her
<br>
> more and find out where she disagrees with us and seeing if we can change
<br>
> that. Until that time and given where we are at in the process, offer, etc
<br>
> now, should we not utilize her skills and experience and trust in our ED's
<br>
> selection and Chair's approval? Our only other option is to revoke the
<br>
> contract, pay her whatever severance fee and start over. I'm not over the
<br>
> moon on that one.
<br>
>
<br>
> 3) So, where exactly do we go from here? Do we harass Dan until he says he
<br>
> has done wrong? Resigns? Do we go after Oliver and Nick for approving? Are
<br>
> we just raising flags to bring public attention and if so, what's the
<br>
> actual point unless you are campaigning (which is not the purpose of this
<br>
> email list)? Do we demand the contract be cancelled and start the search
<br>
> over? All of these are options I suppose. Or, as a suggestion, we could
<br>
> recognize this opportunity to move our organization forward and ensure that
<br>
> future LNCs have a clearer procedure and policy manual? First, I suggest we
<br>
> let up and give the new DD a chance. Second, I propose we redirect this
<br>
> conversation to policy manual fixes and workshopping a hiring policy. Off
<br>
> the top of my head, we need to clarify in a real way what the LNC should be
<br>
> involved with at the very least - all hiring at an arbitrary line or, my
<br>
> suggestion, should we restrict the LNC to only be involved in employment
<br>
> matters concerning the ED and evaluating their performance?
<br>
>
<br>
> 4) I will say that thus far our discussion has not been largely productive.
<br>
> What do we, as the governing body of the world's largest Libertarian Party
<br>
> intend to do in an effort to ease the future growth and expansion of our
<br>
> Party? How can we use this to set an example for affiliate parties? I am
<br>
> happy to take part in any discussion that focuses on where we go. What's
<br>
> been done is done and as far as I can tell, nobody actually did anything
<br>
> wrong outside of optics and a very large grey area in our policy manual was
<br>
> discovered. Let's figure out how to fix it.
<br>
>
<br>
> Richard Longstreth
<br>
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
<br>
> Libertarian National Committee
<br>
> richard.longstreth@lp.org
<br>
> 931.538.9300
<br>
>
<br>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
<br>
>
<br>
--
<br>
<br>
*In Liberty,*
<br>
<br>
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
<br>
(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br>
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
<br>
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>