COMPILED: Questions for LNC Chair candidates

[Susan Hogarth]

NOTE: Please don’t add more questions here, or engage in discussion. New questions for candidates can be added to the original question thread, although in my opinion at this point most ‘new’ questions would just be variations of the ones already asked. 

I’m sending the following compilation of questions we have floated on this list to these so-far nominated candidates: 

Tony D’Orazio

Chuck Moulton

Whitney Bilyeu

Joshua Smith

Steve Dasbach

Christopher Thrasher

NOTA (represented by Dan Fishman)

I have organized the questions by topic and condensed/eliminated obvious duplicates. The candidates may want to reply point-by-point by email to the LNC members, or prepare a statement with those questions in mind, or explain why particular questions aren’t necessarily relevant, or even simply ignore them. 

If replies are sent back to me I will be happy to compile them for circulation to the LNC members, either privately or publicly as indicated by the candidate. 

*****

• Staff: How will you approach working with staff? What changes will you do with staffing? What changes will you have for staff's priorities?
• Fundraising: Will you be available for donor meetings and other fundraising efforts? Do you have fundraising experience? Are you able to engage and energize all levels of membership to meet or exceed fundraising goals? Will you dedicate time specifically for fundraising and development as needed, but at least weekly? What's the largest donation you've ever procured? What's the second-largest?
• Personal plans: Would you consider a run for Chair in ‘22, or do you see this as a strictly interim position? Will you resign all other party appointments (be it to committees or state or county boards) to concentrate on this?
• Plans for LP: Are you willing to be the face of the Party for the media? What changes, if any, are you considering between now and the convention in Reno? How would you utilize the Vice-Chair in accomplishing your goals What are your top priorities now until convention? What would you like to see done differently?
• Factionalism: What is your position on the accusations that there is a flood of bigots taking over the party and the other reasons cited by the former chair, including overt hostility to a particular caucus? Are you willing to speak with caucus leaders and mend the fractionalization?
• LNC internal: How will you deal with interpersonal conflict within the committee? How will you create alignment on goals within the board?

- Susan Hogarth 

Region 5 Representative 

--

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

[Susan Hogarth]

The first candidate response has been shared with Committee members privately as requested. 

- Susan

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I absolutely object to the Party email internal list being used to share information about LNC members questions to Chair candidates.  This absolutely should be public.  That list has been abused over and over, in my opinion, and we have made a mockery of transparency.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

I could send them to everyone’s individual emails instead. Then we won’t have any official record, and of course it will be a bit more hassle. I’m not sure what is to be gained by that, though. 

- Susan Hogarth 

Region 5 Representative 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Nothing would be gained of course except honouring that this is not the purpose of the internal list.  I do not agree to keep this information secret.  What  has been forwarded so far is water under the bridge I suppose, but anything sent after this, I will forward to the public list.  Do not send me anything personally I cannot share with the membership.  We have become far too secretive for my comfort and it does against my principles and campaign promises.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

Can you point me to the formal description of the ‘purpose of the internal list’? 

I will inform candidates who send me replies that you are unwilling to honor a request for privacy. I would hope they would prefer a public response to none. 

Do you intend to share every email sent to you as Secretary to the public list, or only those from Chair candidates?

- Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

In this context I was only referring to the chair candidate answers.

On the other issue, we should not have an internal list to begin with.  It was never authorized by the LNC.  We are to be a transparent body.  

In order to give fellow LNC members the opportunity to have the chair intervene, I will give notice of my intent to forward anything from this point forward.  But I am done passively tolerating what I see to be an abuse of a list that should not even exist.  Many many activists over the years fought for LNC transparency and we - in my opinion - are completely disrespecting that.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

This is the sort of pointless bickering we can do without, and I had hoped to avoid. 

We have a list that shares information with LNC members but is not public. You think it shouldn’t exist or that it should only be used as a sort of electronic executive session. That’s fine, but your representation of that opinion as fact does not become true by your endless repetition of it. I can’t find where private information can’t or shouldn’t be shared to that list as it exists currently and I don’t believe I have shared anything there that indicates an unwillingness to be transparent. 

I do want to see our lists rationalized and carefully described, but it is precisely this constant sidetracking and inability to focus that has prevented this from happening already in my opinion. This simple discussion has now turned into a forum for sniping and grandstanding instead of an exchange of information and rational discussion. 

The information I shared - communication desired to be private from a candidate - can easily be shared with all LNC members by private email. I have done so. If you object to that (and clearly you do), I will send an addendum to the candidates informing them that requests for confidentiality are unwelcome and that any email they send to you (and perhaps others) will not be treated as private.  

I apologize to members for again getting drawn into the weeds. I point out that you have taken pains this week to publicly call me out for being “an insufferable nagging hall monitor while acting like the paragon of virtue”. I believe this sort of behavior is called ‘projection’ by psychologists. 

- Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative 

[Richard Longstreth]

Mr Acting Chair,

I would ask that you instruct the Secretary not to act unilaterally to forward internal discussion to a public list without a vote of this body on the specific content. No one person should have the sole authority to act as gate keeper between the lists.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I stated my position.  I took pains to label it as such.  I am zealous to the point of naggery about transparency, it is true.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am requesting the chair then to make the more transparent order of not allowing us to go into executive session via email without a vote of this body.  The default is transparency, not non-transparency, and it is secrecy that requires a vote.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

Please don’t drag this out. Ms. Harlos has had her say. 

I would like to see one thread on this list that doesn’t devolve into barely-related bickering about side issues. It’s too late for this one, but we can practice restraint in preparation for the next one. 

- Susan

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I object to the characterization of legitimate concerns as bickering.  I do believe that is beyond decorum.  These are not new concerns to me or this LNC, and I have every right to express them.  I have expressed them as succinctly and dispassionately as I can, and the attacks for doing so are out of bounds.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

I have asked the candidates to consider creating public responses in light of the distaste for confidential communications that exists among some members of the committee. 

- Susan

[Susan Hogarth]

Hello, Starchild,

No one is trying to hide things as far as I can tell. 

There was a communication sent privately. It was requested to be made public. That request was honored. That seems to me to be things working as they should.

Can you explain why you would like your communication shared on the lnc-business list? Do you think all member (and non-member?) requests should be honored as well? I’m trying to get an understanding of this. I don’t think the purpose of the business list is for public comment, and I believe the reposting of communications has been weaponized by some members of the committee to the detriment of our working together. But I’m interested in hearing contrary arguments. 

- Susan 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:24 AM Starchild for SF! <realr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

The distaste for secret communications should exist among all members of the committee! 

If you as a member of the LNC, or as a candidate for chair, disagree with the secretary and think that responses of candidates for Libertarian Party chair to questions asking about their plans for the position should be kept secret from Libertarian Party members, please have the honesty and integrity to say so plainly and publicly!

Some of us who do value transparency would like to know where our representatives stand, so that we can avoid supporting those who do not really value it, for party or public office. Yes, transparency is that important! Without transparency there can be no real accountability, and without accountability of the party leadership to party members, the LP cannot hope to remain a sustainably libertarian grassroots organization run from the bottom up not the top down.

I request my regional representative or alternate to forward this message to the public LNC list (the only legitimate LNC list!), and if that doesn't happen promptly for whatever reason, I would ask any other committee member to do so. I would also ask this be forwarded to Anthony D'Orazio, since his email address was unnecessarily redacted from his published responses and I do not have it. The other nominated candidates for chair are copied on this email.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Former LNC at-large representative

Starchild.ForLiberty.org

@StarchildSF

(415) 625-FREE

RealR...@earthlink.net

P.S. – I endorse a vote by the convention delegates to fill the vacant chair position, as the secretary has suggested, and add my voice to those asking LNC members to co-sponsor her motion to do so:

"I am asking for cosponsors for a motion to direct the secretary to send out an rcv opavote ballot to the email addresses of every primary delegate from the second sitting of the 2020 convention (in person and remote) with the ballot set to expire one hour after the conclusion of Sunday's meeting and the results to be sent to the LNC immediately thereafter."

P.P.S. – If the LNC does not allow the delegates to decide, I strongly urge members to select someone who promises not to run for the position in 2022 if appointed (and I would urge all the candidates seeking to fill this vacancy to make that pledge). If convention delegates are not allowed to choose who fills out this term, they certainly deserve the opportunity to select the next chair to serve a full term on the basis of a level playing field, without one candidate benefitting from having the mantle of incumbency bestowed upon them in advance by party leaders.

*     *     *

#FreeJulianAssange! Long live WikiLeaks!

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lnc-business...@lp.org.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

That chair issue is not the only one and the entire LNC is aware of my numerous complaints over the past few months about the misuse of that list.  It is not correct to respond as if this is just about one chair candidate’s innocent request.  It is a far larger transparency issue that I have tried to handle in private numerous times and have been ignored or dismissed.

--

[Susan Hogarth]

I am also trying to address this issue. We may have different thoughts on solutions, but I think we have the same goals. 

- Susan

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And Starchild I agree with you on the distaste issue.  It certainly exists with Party members whom the LNC serves.

We have gone way backwards from past terms in transparency.

[Laura Ebke]

In the interest of transparency, will all LNC members agree to divulge all forms of income, and expenses, which they receive --for their campaigns, from personal GoFundMe's, from non-regular employment (which I would define as reportable by an employer on a W-2)? I would be willing to report my personal regular income, as well, but many would understandably be uncomfortable with that, and I'm not sure that it's necessary in the interest of transparency in my position on the LNC and any influence on the way that I approach issues.

On my official Facebook page, I made note of this, and I'll just quote that in total here:

The last several weeks on the LNC, much has been made in some circles about conflicts of interest and potential corruption. I'm not sure that any of those charges have been proven or really apply here, if one looks at the strict definition of the terms rather than the claims.

When I was in the Legislature, we not only had to file "potential conflicts of interest" with the Clerk of the Legislature (typically that was for those who were employed by a non-profit that might have business before the Legislature), we also had to file the infamous C-1 Report each year with the Accountability and Disclosure Commission. The C-1 required reporting of all personal gifts (except those from family members) in excess of $100, as well as stock holdings and other business interests.

While we on the LNC provide a list of "conflict of interests" that are available for perusal, most of those seem to be related to either our work (I work for a liberty-minded think tank, but my job could have an impact on the way that I think about an issue that comes before the LNC--theoretically).

Some are related to those who are state party officers (or local party) who might have conflict.

Most of our travel expenses are on our own dime, and I doubt anyone is getting rich off of being on the LNC. I did (while I was in the Legislature, and as recently as a month or so ago when I was in Colorado) accept a comped room from state parties when I was scheduled to speak at their conventions. Occasionally they've paid my expenses to get there, but I've never asked for anything else, and honestly, in many cases, I've spent as much as they've reimbursed me bidding on items in their fundraising auctions.

If there is concern about conflict of interest or "corruption" (which often implies some sort of financial quid pro quo, in the law, anyway), perhaps a policy should be put in place for the next LNC (or even yet this term) whereby members report any financial benefit they have received that's unrelated to their regular employment, while on the LNC.

Likewise, while I didn't raise or spend ANY money to get elected to the LNC last year, I know that some have raised and spent quite a bit. Perhaps, rather than simply saying that our finances in running for office are transparent, we should ask for a basic accounting of contributions and expenditures to be filed periodically.

No one likes bureaucracy or filling out forms. By the same token, transparency in these things can ease concerns about potential wrongdoing. AND, creating an expectation of accountability and ethical behavior is good practice for the days when we have more Libertarians in elected public office.

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

Former NE State Senator
laura...@lp.org
Cell: 402-540-6510

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Yes.  All of my gofundme's and patrons are public.  I also provide public disclosure and proof of receipts for all campaign funds.  While I am willing to do this, without a policy, since I am the obvious target here (perhaps also Joshua) I find this to be borderline personal harassment and inappropriate.  Suggest a policy rather than making reputation-damaging insinuations.  

Now can we get back to discussing the abuse of the secret list?

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Laura Ebke]

Very well. 

Since another email suggests that you have taken to Facebook to criticize my motives (I can't see it since you unfriended me a few weeks ago), let me just my questions forthrightly.

This link goes to a GoFundMe, organized by (I'm told) the Treasurer of the LPNH party. https://www.gofundme.com/f/8wcp4-help

The purpose was originally to pay to get you to PorcFest. Expanded about 24 hours later, after they hit their original goal, to help pay your mortgage.

I would argue that a GoFundMe to get you to PorcFest (albeit, created on June 17, shortly after the issues with the LPNH came to light) was a fair and legitimate purpose.

Have you accepted funds from this GoFundMe to pay your mortgage or other personal expenses? If so, have you filed a Conflict of Interest and recused yourself from discussions of the New Hampshire situation? If not, does not the very offer of funding for non-official-capacity purposes represent a potential conflict of interest, at the least--especially when the organizer is an officer in the party organization whose existence was briefly an issue? 

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

Former NE State Senator
laura...@lp.org
Cell: 402-540-6510

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Friends raised money to help me in distress.  This is very public.  All of this happened after the situation and no I will not recuse myself from any such discussions.  I will note that we have no such policy, and I would welcome a clear one.  We need one.  RONR requires no such recusal.  Personal fundraisers to assist people in distress are libertarian mutual aid solutions.  This, to me, appears to be a continuation of a grudge against me for calling out corruption on the LNC (on the part of the former chair) and what I believe to be retributive motions.  There is zero improper about gofundmes of libertarians from all over the country helping another libertarian.

You brought up an issue publicly first as is your right and my conversations on my personal wall are not the business of the LNC and it is highly inappropriate to continue to reference them here as it makes all these "official" questions appear to be grudges about personal opinions.  The intrusion into my personal life that keeps happening here is inappropriate.

I would be glad to work with you on a policy that has been needed for years.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

Lots to digest here, but I have a hard time getting past the fact that you use ‘secret’ when I use ‘confidential’. I am not sure we are ever going to be in agreement if you see the terms as interchangeable. 

I don’t want to treat Party members as outsiders in the party. But the LNC isn’t the party. It’s a committee formed and selected for a certain purpose. I don’t want every committee to be open comment session all the time. That’d make the chatty types feel good, but wouldn’t accomplish much. 

- S. 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:45 PM Starchild for SF! <realr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Hi Susan,

Thank you for your response; I appreciate the dialogue. Caryn Ann is correct in surmising that my subject line was not referring solely to the communications from candidates for chair. 

I respectfully disagree that no one is trying to hide stuff, even if they don't necessarily think about it in precisely those terms:  Anyone who supports maintaining a secret LNC email list is trying to hide stuff, and that's just for starters. There is also secrecy around contracts, staff salaries, personnel issues, and more. None of these things should be hidden from members except to the minimum extent required by law.

Don't get me wrong here – I'm not saying this is happening because people have nefarious motives. I (fortunately!) have been given no cause to think you or anyone else currently on the LNC does not sincerely hold strongly libertarian beliefs or is not trying to do what they think is best for the Libertarian Party and the cause of freedom for which we stand. 

But what I said about transparency and accountability is true: We can't count on future party leaders to always automatically have promoting liberty at heart. Party leaders under pressure to think like lawyers and bureaucrats need the members to keep them on track, just as the LP, fighting in the electoral belly of the beast with the temptations to pander for money and votes, need the larger freedom movement to keep us on track. History provides ample examples that as organizations – governments or otherwise – grow larger and acquire more power, they tend over time to come to be dominated by those who are in it for the power and the money. Under such leadership, or under the leadership of those who mean well but have become "company men" (or women), the narrow, institutional well-being of an organization can easily come to be prioritized over the purpose for which it was created. For instance, declining to share our resources with others in the freedom movement when sharing them would advance the larger cause. Fiduciary duty is a dangerous term that should be weaponized only against betrayals of libertarian principle; it should never be used as an excuse to put the perceived interests of the party as an institution ahead of advancing the cause of freedom, or to keep party members in the dark.

Secrecy is like a cancer: Once it is justified and accepted in one area, it is apt to quickly spread – since individuals often perceive it to be in their personal interest, or in the interests of the organization (see preceding comment on "fiduciary duty"!) to have access to information to which others lack similar access, there will always be endless rationalizations for the hoarding of information. Unless there is a strong transparency culture and/or functional anti-secrecy rules in place, secrecy can readily happen by default simply as a result of no one bothering to call it out or take steps to prevent it from happening.

It has long been a problem, for instance, that surveys, questionnaires, etc., are sent out on behalf of the party, the LNC, or some individual committee like the Bylaws Committee, without any notification to the recipients that their responses will be made public. Such notification should be standard operating procedure. The failure to provide it has sometimes been used to justify secrecy after the fact ("Oh, we didn't tell them we would be publishing their replies, so it would be violating their privacy"). This might be a reasonable one-time excuse if accompanied by a push to immediately change practices and procedures to guarantee that proper notification would be sent out henceforth to make it clear that communications with the party or the LNC are public. It's not an excuse for continuing to have the same type of failure over and over again.

If a candidate for chair submits an application letter or questionnaire response, posting it to the public list should be a no-brainer. Ideally LP members would be able to post to the list directly themselves, but since they cannot, it is up to the LNC member(s) receiving the communications to do so.

Regarding your questions Susan, I want my comments (and those of other LP members not on the LNC) posted to the list upon request for the same reasons I presume you want yours posted – because I am passionate about advancing the libertarian movement and feel that I have something of value to contribute to the conversation. 

I think it comes down to how we see ourselves – who we perceive as part of our "we". While serving two terms on the LNC, it was my impression that some of my fellow representatives tended to see only LNC members, or perhaps LNC members plus staff, as the "we" who should be trusted and included in the information loop, with LP members being seen more as outsiders – generally fellow traveler outsiders to be sure, outsiders we were obliged to work for and support, as well as resources to tap for fundraising, volunteer work, etc., but outsiders nonetheless.

I strongly disagree with that view. I felt then, and feel now, that party leaders should not treat party members as outsiders. That the "we" in the LP should be the set of people who've shown that they are broadly on the same page with us in fighting for freedom. Right now the best quantifiable measure we have of this is people who have signed the Non-Aggression pledge (i.e., LP members). The universe of registered Libertarians is too broad, because anyone can register to vote Libertarian without any certification of whether their political beliefs resemble libertarianism in any way, shape or form. But the micro-universe of LNC members or national staffers, by contrast, is way too narrow. Any LP members who care enough about our party and its cause to volunteer their time to come to LNC meetings when they hold no party office and are under no obligation to be there, deserve more appreciation than either staff members who are being paid for their time, or members of the LNC and its subcommittees who get official titles and the power to influence policy directly by making motions and casting votes – privileges for which others would often gladly pay money to take their places! Yet the LNC makes them sit in the back or at the sides of the room and shut up unless formally recognized at specific times. At times their right to comment even at prescribed times has been treated as an afterthought, an unimportant part of the meeting.

Once you allow yourself to think of pledge-signing LP members as part of your "we", then the correct approach to a whole lot of other questions suddenly becomes very clear:  

Of course comments from non-LNC members should be posted to the LNC list! (If excessive list volume becomes a problem, deal with that issue as it arises, by limiting length or number of posts per person or something.) 

Of course they (we!) should be part of the conversation! 

Of course they (we!) should have access to information to which LNC members have access! 

Of course they (we!) are not "the public" (outsiders); they (we!) are us, the party! We are all part of the team. 

If there is concern about the ideological fitness of all multi-thousands of us to be on the team, then we should establish stronger ideological standards – require voting LP members to score at least 80/80 or 90/90 on a version of the Nolan chart, or something along those lines – not exclude people who meet the standard we currently have in place simply because they lack a formal title or staff position. The most important credentials any of us possess for wielding power or influence in the party are our libertarian beliefs, period!

I would like to also address the good questions raised by Laura Ebke. While personal disclosure is an admirable choice and certainly not wrong, I don't think the expectation of transparency should extend beyond the scope of the organization. Any monies paid by the party should be fully public, and representatives should maintain public contact information and disclose any conflicts of interest (including, in my view, any income derived from government – if getting paid by the State isn't a conflict of interest for a Libertarian, I'm not sure what is!). However I don't think they should be obligated to declare their personal income from sources that do not present any conflict of interest with their commitment to libertarianism and the LP. The goal should be for the party's governance, and the use of its resources, to be fully transparent. Not for the entire life of every individual involved to be an open book. A balanced approach may be summed up by the slogan, "Individual privacy, institutional transparency". 

I agree with Laura that it is reasonable and prudent to require candidates for party office to disclose money spent on their campaigns. That is clearly within the scope of the organization. And yes, I think monetary or in-kind contributions to representatives from persons with an interest in their official decisions and actions should also be disclosed. An exception might be situations in which disclosure would put people at risk of government persecution for actions which libertarians do not believe are actual criminal offenses.

Again, I believe we should all – libertarians on the LNC and not on the LNC, libertarians in the LP and not in the LP – be working together, seeing each other's input as contributions from fellow members of the team, and wanting our fellow team members to be as well-informed as possible. Not trying to prevent them from being well-informed in the name of maintaining good relations with a smaller clique of insiders. We have few enough comrades in the struggle to roll back authoritarianism as it is.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Starchild, thank you for correctly identifying that the concern is not necessarily THIS LNC  but the future.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Tim Hagan]

Not saying that it's necessary since we don't have a policy, but are those items really public if we're not told about the information existing in the public? I didn't know about Patrons (still can't find it) and didn't know about the LPNH Gofundme until informed by a party member. I have a financial disclosure that was filed publicly in 2020, but I wouldn't assume that everyone in the party knows about it. Something to consider if we want to change the Policy Manual.

Tim Hagan

Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I can appreciate that Mr. Hagan.  My point is that this is not a secret and without a policy, it is not required.  I have disclosed my youtube channel and the fact it was monetized by patrons since I started.  Friends - and all my friends are in the party - helping me when unemployed is not really the LNC's business.  I don't care but it isn't.  It wasn't a NH fundraiser, it was a friend.  This is really getting outlandish.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Dustin Nanna]

I've never received a penny for anything LP related other then reimbursement for some expenditures I made for the LPO some years ago. As far as performance income goes, that's no one's business including the IRS 😁

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Dustin Nanna]

Personal**

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I note my question on officers more generally was omitted.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Susan Hogarth]

I may have missed it, or considered to be essentially the same as another question. My apologies, but it doesn’t seem to matter very much as the candidates have not submitted anything with the exception of Mr. D’Orazio. I am hoping they are at least taking these questions into consideration for their statements. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am speaking with the candidates and I wanted to share something Mr. D'Orazio said as it may assist others.  I told him that - for me - an absolute requirement was that the candidate agree not to run for chair in 2022 and that I know multiple other LNC members have expessed the same.  He asked why and I explained.  He thanked me and said he would consider this over the next two days and be prepared to definitively answer on Sunday.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250