<div dir='auto'>I have to agree with Mrs Harlos on at least the point about off list discussions and lobbying. Those things happen, are expected, and not really the issue.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I also tho agree with Mr Wendt on the usual process of a call for co-sponsors first, so discussion and amendments etc can be offered.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are many issues around this particular motion, but this particular one off who wrote it is one of the more minor ones, if it at all.<br><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 May 7, 2020 7:25 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">And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does
<br>
anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his
<br>
case here and not try to influence members?
<br>
<br>
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received
<br>
several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I
<br>
stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
<br>
<br>
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private
<br>
discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as
<br>
well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included
<br>
and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and
<br>
say, that's life.
<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
> No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The
<br>
> business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is
<br>
> going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever
<br>
> outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the
<br>
> time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr.
<br>
> Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought
<br>
> it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
<br>
>
<br>
> If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual
<br>
> amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt
<br>
> here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
<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>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
<br>
> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
>> Thank you Dustin.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were
<br>
>> voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way.
<br>
>> I doubt it would be well received.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> ---
<br>
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
<br>
>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
<br>
>>
<br>
>> On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
<br>
>>
<br>
>> > For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from
<br>
>> doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open
<br>
>> meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand
<br>
>> that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was
<br>
>> a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the
<br>
>> best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less
<br>
>> than desirable imo.
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> >> CAH,
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are
<br>
>> >> "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions.
<br>
>> It's
<br>
>> >> not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look
<br>
>> like,
<br>
>> >> where you wrote:
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> --> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone
<br>
>> who
<br>
>> >> just happened to put thoughts on paper."
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> --> "This need to a single person to attack..."
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch
<br>
>> >> hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find
<br>
>> >> your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you
<br>
>> >> like, two can use it.)
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need
<br>
>> >> to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that
<br>
>> >> motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't
<br>
>> >> tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a
<br>
>> >> coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to,
<br>
>> send
<br>
>> >> me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may
<br>
>> >> help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were
<br>
>> not
<br>
>> >> privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a
<br>
>> vote.
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> ---
<br>
>> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
<br>
>> >> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
<br>
>> >>> EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not
<br>
>> >>> appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote
<br>
>> >>> it is
<br>
>> >>> irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing
<br>
>> ability
<br>
>> >>> in
<br>
>> >>> the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch
<br>
>> >>> hunt
<br>
>> >>> to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If
<br>
>> that
<br>
>> >>> person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place
<br>
>> to
<br>
>> >>> name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my
<br>
>> name
<br>
>> >>> to
<br>
>> >>> it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the
<br>
>> author
<br>
>> >>> does
<br>
>> >>> not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed
<br>
>> >>> their
<br>
>> >>> name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't
<br>
>> force
<br>
>> >>> my
<br>
>> >>> preferences on other people.
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> *In Liberty,*
<br>
>> >>>
<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), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>> Francis,
<br>
>> >>>>
<br>
>> >>>> There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public
<br>
>> >>>> business list. We do use it for official business but private
<br>
>> >>>> discussions between LNC members are not official business. This
<br>
>> >>>> motion
<br>
>> >>>> met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send
<br>
>> out
<br>
>> >>>> an
<br>
>> >>>> email ballot.
<br>
>> >>>>
<br>
>> >>>> Live Free,
<br>
>> >>>>
<br>
>> >>>> ---
<br>
>> >>>> Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
<br>
>> >>>> Libertarian National Committee
<br>
>> >>>> 317-850-0726 Cell
<br>
>> >>>>
<br>
>> >>>> On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>> In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off
<br>
>> >>>>> list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater
<br>
>> purpose
<br>
>> >>>>> of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having
<br>
>> the
<br>
>> >>>>> full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record
<br>
>> of
<br>
>> >>>>> the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would
<br>
>> happen
<br>
>> >>>>> in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
<br>
>> >>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>> Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the
<br>
>> >>>>> requirements for business to be conducted on the public business
<br>
>> >>>>> listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the
<br>
>> best
<br>
>> >>>>> intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not
<br>
>> >>>>> meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
<br>
>> >>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>> As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean
<br>
>> >>>>> that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am
<br>
>> duty
<br>
>> >>>>> bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that
<br>
>> is
<br>
>> >>>>> my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
<br>
>> >>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>> Respectfully,
<br>
>> >>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>> ---
<br>
>> >>>>> FRANCIS WENDT
<br>
>> >>>>> LNC Region 1 Alternate
<br>
>> >>>>> 406.595.5111
<br>
>> >>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>> On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple
<br>
>> times
<br>
>> >>>>>> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered
<br>
>> >>>>>> openly
<br>
>> >>>>>> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people
<br>
>> responded.
<br>
>> >>>>>> That
<br>
>> >>>>>> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but
<br>
>> anyone
<br>
>> >>>>>> could
<br>
>> >>>>>> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the
<br>
>> >>>>>> chair to
<br>
>> >>>>>> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a
<br>
>> >>>>>> "backroom"
<br>
>> >>>>>> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not
<br>
>> >>>>>> helpful
<br>
>> >>>>>> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such
<br>
>> >>>>>> things on
<br>
>> >>>>>> this list.
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>> *In Liberty,*
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<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
<br>
>> social
<br>
>> >>>>>> faux
<br>
>> >>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business
<br>
>> <
<br>
>> >>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it
<br>
>> was
<br>
>> >>>>>>> needed, the 'why' for motions.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought
<br>
>> they
<br>
>> >>>>>>> were
<br>
>> >>>>>>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were
<br>
>> >>>>>>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that
<br>
>> they
<br>
>> >>>>>>> got
<br>
>> >>>>>>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up
<br>
>> for
<br>
>> >>>>>>> a
<br>
>> >>>>>>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't
<br>
>> obstructionist.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's
<br>
>> good to
<br>
>> >>>>>>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the
<br>
>> >>>>>>> phrase
<br>
>> >>>>>>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say,
<br>
>> "off-list".
<br>
>> >>>>>>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members
<br>
>> >>>>>>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a
<br>
>> >>>>>>> motion
<br>
>> >>>>>>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being
<br>
>> >>>>>>> considered.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> ---
<br>
>> >>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
<br>
>> >>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the
<br>
>> >>>> backroom
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted,
<br>
>> because it
<br>
>> >>>> is
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of
<br>
>> interest
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate
<br>
>> objection so
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I
<br>
>> felt
<br>
>> >>>> was
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot
<br>
>> with
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by
<br>
>> >>>> certain
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here
<br>
>> that
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> we've
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this
<br>
>> >>>> group.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death
<br>
>> because
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> it is
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up
<br>
>> >>>> offline
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> and
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting
<br>
>> the
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> opposite criticism.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as
<br>
>> a
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> group
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media
<br>
>> relations
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> committee
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee
<br>
>> idea
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> to
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> ---
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of
<br>
>> doing
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass
<br>
>> or
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> because
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am
<br>
>> willing
<br>
>> >>>> to
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which
<br>
>> >>>> ruleset
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> we
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to
<br>
>> accomplish
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on
<br>
>> this
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of
<br>
>> our
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> organization.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> Richard Longstreth
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA,
<br>
>> WY)
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> 931.538.9300
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my Mobile Device
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >>>>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> John Phillips
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you Alex.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> straight
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's
<br>
>> some
<br>
>> >>>> vile
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those
<br>
>> rumors.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> introduced straight to a vote.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC
<br>
>> members are
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the
<br>
>> >>>> sudden
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus,
<br>
>> who
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> authored this?
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> ---
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via
<br>
>> Lnc-business
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > My Questions
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> >
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional
<br>
>> call
<br>
>> >>>> for
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?)
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> >
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this
<br>
>> late
<br>
>> >>>> in
<br>
>> >>>>>>> our
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > term?
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> >
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most
<br>
>> >>>> organization
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of
<br>
>> interest. I
<br>
>> >>>> just
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want
<br>
>> clarity on
<br>
>> >>>> the
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > two points above.
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> >
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > Alex Merced
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>>>>
<br>
>> >>>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>