<div dir='auto'>I am tired. I am irritable. I am frustrated. So I probably should not speak at all. But since much of my frustration is with this crap here you go.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The intention was clear to the co-sponsors, suck it up and deal with it.<br><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Stop with the damn rules lawyering obstructionist BS. Are there times it is appropriate, yes, but 90% of the time it is being thrown out there to forward some personal agenda, or just satisfy some deep OCD issues. Give it an effen rest.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is clear that enough members of the body desire a discussion. It is clear that enough members of the party would like this discussion to happen.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I very personally will suggest that if you spend half or more of your time trying being petty over dotted i's and crossed t's that make no real difference - allowing for the times it actually does - that perhaps every now and then step back and realize that it really doesnt mean a damn thing and you are just being a PITA for nothing.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes I am aware of the hypocrisy of this after the crap I gave about civility, but enough is damn well enough.</div><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">John Phillips<br>Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br>Cell 217-412-5973</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 15, 2020 9:27 AM, 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">I had today’s date wrong in my head as I am traveling lol over the country
<br>
and barely know what state I am in.
<br>
<br>
I will let the chair decide if it’s correct.
<br>
<br>
This to me is an example of using the rules to make things difficult for no
<br>
real purpose. And I simply won’t waste time on that. Everyone knows the
<br>
intent and everyone knows the date was to accommodate the ten day notice
<br>
period without being wayyyy out. The fact that one angel isn’t dancing on
<br>
the pin head is not relevant IMHO. It is apparent that a certain
<br>
contingent doesn’t want a meeting and that is fine - but some of us do and
<br>
I stand by my call.
<br>
<br>
The chair can unilaterally reset at his choice and I would welcome it.
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:23 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
<br>
lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> Alicia does have some points in the 12 days and time arena, but I believe
<br>
> the motion itself passed correctly. I believe the secretary may have set
<br>
> the meeting up incorrectly.
<br>
>
<br>
> In the original ask the time and subject were included. I'm happy to move
<br>
> this meeting two days sooner as we passed. There should be no other issues
<br>
> beyond that. The reason I'm not in arms over the date is because it was
<br>
> proposed and passed on the same day with the language of starting 10 days
<br>
> after passing. None of the cosponsors sponsored on a different day so there
<br>
> cannot be any implied confusion on what the cosponsors passed.
<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>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 07:17 Richard Longstreth <richard.longstreth@lp.org>
<br>
> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> > I cosponsored the proposed meeting, time, and subject. Because no changes
<br>
> > were made to the original ask, and how email threads work, I thought
<br>
> > everything was implied. If the members of this body would rather a
<br>
> minimum
<br>
> > of six separate email threads calling for this meeting, with debate
<br>
> > occurring in each, I would be happy to comply. Just let me know how
<br>
> formal
<br>
> > we would like to be on a call that received 8 cosponsors, all not making
<br>
> > changes to the original motion thus implicitly echoing the time, date,
<br>
> > subject matter, etc.
<br>
> >
<br>
> > I feel the policy manual requirements were met and defer to the chair to
<br>
> > make a decision otherwise.
<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>
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 04:13 Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
<br>
> > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >
<br>
> >> Besides the detail of the subject matter, Mr. Goldstein already pointed
<br>
> >> out
<br>
> >> that our policy requires, "Each committee member calling for an
<br>
> electronic
<br>
> >> meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee and specifying the
<br>
> >> date
<br>
> >> of the meeting, time of the meeting, meeting link including the identity
<br>
> >> of
<br>
> >> the Electronic Meeting Provider, and the topic(s) to be addressed."
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> Yet the co-sponsors were obtained based on the topic, but not with the
<br>
> >> other details specified. In the middle of the process the original
<br>
> >> requestor said the meeting would be set for 10 days from when the final
<br>
> >> sponsor was obtained, at 9-11 pm Eastern on that date. The final
<br>
> sponsor
<br>
> >> was obtained on 03/14, but the call of the meeting is for 12 days later
<br>
> >> rather than the 10 days later indicated. There was no way for Dr. Lark
<br>
> to
<br>
> >> know to ask for an earlier time to accommodate his 03/26 schedule
<br>
> conflict
<br>
> >> before the meeting call was sent out, given that the information given
<br>
> to
<br>
> >> him previously did not suggest 03/26 would be the resulting date. Even
<br>
> if
<br>
> >> it had been set for 10 days rather than 12, the fact that the date was
<br>
> not
<br>
> >> locked by the sponsors in advance but was instead a floating relative
<br>
> date
<br>
> >> meant that one had to predict when the final sponsor would develop to
<br>
> >> check
<br>
> >> their calendar for conflicts.
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> This call-to-meeting changes the details after-the-fact. The real
<br>
> impact
<br>
> >> of not following the protocol established by our policy is to interfere
<br>
> >> with one member's ability to fully participate. This sort of thing is
<br>
> >> exactly why the policy says the cosponsors must agree to all those
<br>
> >> details.
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> -Alicia
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 1:54 AM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org>
<br>
> >> wrote:
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >> > I think the subject matter given in this meeting notice is improperly
<br>
> >> > broad.
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > The initial sponsor of the idea started an email with a subject line
<br>
> >> > referring only to "convention" and asked for a meeting to discuss this
<br>
> >> > matter. Mr. Goldstein asked for clarification of what matter. The
<br>
> >> > response was, "our contingency plans and status in light of the
<br>
> >> pandemic."
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > That was the given understanding when other LNC members agreed to join
<br>
> >> the
<br>
> >> > call of the meeting. Yet this meeting notice says the subject is
<br>
> again
<br>
> >> > just the very broad "convention" topic, rather than the narrowed
<br>
> answer
<br>
> >> > which was given in that email thread.
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > Some other topics that came up in that email thread go beyond the
<br>
> scope
<br>
> >> of
<br>
> >> > contingency plans and into brainstorming potential bylaws amendments
<br>
> on
<br>
> >> > other topics not related to the stated purpose of the meeting. I am
<br>
> >> quite
<br>
> >> > concerned that stating the topic as "convention" rather than "our
<br>
> >> > contingency plans and status in light of the pandemic" could lead to
<br>
> >> some
<br>
> >> > trying to bring those subjects into the meeting, when that was not the
<br>
> >> > purpose stated.
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > I will object to topics other than "our contingency plans and status
<br>
> in
<br>
> >> > light of the pandemic" as being outside of the scope of the special
<br>
> >> meeting.
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > -Alicia
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 5:25 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
<br>
> >> > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >> >> Here is the Zoom information. This meeting was sponsored by Hagan,
<br>
> >> >> Harlos,
<br>
> >> >> Longstreth, Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith, Van Horn
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> Caryn Ann Harlos is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> Topic: LNC Special Meeting Re: Convention
<br>
> >> >> Time: Mar 26, 2020 09:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> Join Zoom Meeting
<br>
> >> >> https://zoom.us/j/239017962
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> Meeting ID: 239 017 962
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> One tap mobile
<br>
> >> >> +13126266799,,239017962# US (Chicago)
<br>
> >> >> +16465588656,,239017962# US (New York)
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> Dial by your location
<br>
> >> >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
<br>
> >> >> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
<br>
> >> >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
<br>
> >> >> +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
<br>
> >> >> +1 253 215 8782 US
<br>
> >> >> +1 301 715 8592 US
<br>
> >> >> Meeting ID: 239 017 962
<br>
> >> >> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adyM24yilG
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >> * In Liberty,*
<br>
> >> >> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
<br>
> Syndrome
<br>
> >> >> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
> >> >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br>
> anyone
<br>
> >> >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
<br>
> >> faux
<br>
> >> >> pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.
<br>
> >> *
<br>
> >> >>
<br>
> >> >
<br>
> >>
<br>
> >
<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>