<div dir='auto'>For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates) <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn 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">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. 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 like,
<br>
where you wrote:
<br>
<br>
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone 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, 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 not
<br>
privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
<br>
<br>
<br>
---
<br>
Elizabeth Van Horn
<br>
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
<br>
<br>
<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 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 that
<br>
> person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to
<br>
> name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name
<br>
> to
<br>
> it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the 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 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 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
<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 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 purpose
<br>
>> > of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the
<br>
>> > full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of
<br>
>> > the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would 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 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 duty
<br>
>> > bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that 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 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 responded.
<br>
>> >> That
<br>
>> >> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but 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 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 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
<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 was
<br>
>> >>> needed, the 'why' for motions.
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought 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 they
<br>
>> >>> got
<br>
>> >>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for
<br>
>> >>> a
<br>
>> >>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's 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, "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, because it
<br>
>> is
<br>
>> >>> > common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest
<br>
>> >>> > provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so
<br>
>> >>> > cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt
<br>
>> was
<br>
>> >>> > valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot 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 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 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 the
<br>
>> >>> > opposite criticism.
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a
<br>
>> >>> > group
<br>
>> >>> > has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations
<br>
>> >>> > committee
<br>
>> >>> > that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee 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 doing
<br>
>> >>> > nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or
<br>
>> >>> > because
<br>
>> >>> > it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am 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 accomplish
<br>
>> >>> > literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this
<br>
>> >>> > committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our
<br>
>> >>> > organization.
<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 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 some
<br>
>> vile
<br>
>> >>> >> rumors on social media about LNC members.
<br>
>> >>> >>
<br>
>> >>> >> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those 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 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, 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 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 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 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 interest. I
<br>
>> just
<br>
>> >>> >> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want 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>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>