[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility.  As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Caryn, I will co-sponsor your motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore’s two votes were egregious.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

http://www.lpne.org

secr...@lpne.org

dpdem...@centurylink.net

david.d...@firstdata.com

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

John Moore is someone I have grown to consider to be a friend.  He slept on the sleeper sofa in my villa during the LNC meeting in Phoenix when he came down from Las Vegas to first address the LNC. He spoke at the Louisiana State Convention in April of 2016 and I personally ran an impromptu fund raiser for his campaign that garnered close to $2500. I believe I have personally donated somewhere near $500 to his campaign.  I strongly advocated for giving his campaign $10,000 from the LNC.   I am so disappointed in his current actions that I can not possibly convey how deep that disappointment goes.  It leaves me immensely saddened.  His actions in these votes don't even line up with how he performed in the past as a Republican assemblyman much less with how he should vote now as a member of the Libertarian Party.

I WILL CO-SPONSOR THIS MOTION.


Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

On Oct 20, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility.  As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will cosponsor this motion.

--

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Daniel,

Thank you Dan for having the principled dedication to do what's right for the libertarian movement and party even in the case of a friend might consider it unwelcome. Hopefully this resolution will, by sending a strong message, help avert more of us avoid experiencing disappointments like yours in the future. I wish John Moore the best in coming to his libertarian senses, and urge him to take this in the spirit of an "intervention" by friends who don't want to see their friends in power abusing their bodies politic by drinking too much statism. 

I will also co-sponsor the motion.

Love & Liberty,

                               ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                            (415) 625-FREE

                              @StarchildSF

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you everyone.  We have five co-sponsors.  I ask Alicia to prepare the email ballot.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I was shocked when I read of Moore's vote on a taxpayer funded stadium.  We will have to add that to our list of questions 

when we vet future candidates who approach the LNC for funding.

I will also co-sponsor this motion.

Live Free,

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Cc: david.d...@firstdata.com
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM

#yiv9175739729
#yiv9175739729 --

_filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv9175739729
#yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729
span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729
span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
div.yiv9175739729msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv9175739729
span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1
{}
#yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im
{}
#yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20
{color:windowtext;}
#yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault
{}
_filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1
{}
#yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your
motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the

$10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore’s
two votes were egregious.  Thoughts?  Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High
and LIVE FREE!  The Invisible Hand of
Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org

secr...@lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net
david.d...@firstdata.com
Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207  From: Lnc-business

[mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Thursday,
October 20, 2016 7:45 PM
To:
lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject:
[Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
co-sponsors

HarlosRegion 1 Representative,

Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party
Radical Caucus      
 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Please allow me to take the Devil's Advocate position, since I probably won't have a vote that counts anyway.  I realize that this position is unlikely to be popular. 

 

Politics and philosophy can be a tough balancing act.  Certainly, there are instances of this problem with our presidential ticket (bake the cake, for example) and probably every other campaign out there (vaccination debate, etc.).  Elected officials, and indeed individuals, are faced with tough decisions between philosophy and reality all the time.  Perhaps the most famous was Jefferson's opposition to slavery while also owning slaves.

 

 

 

Assemblyman Moore reported that a poll of the constituents of his district showed that about 60% of the constituents supported the deal, including the associated taxes. Certainly, there could and should have been a coordinated effort by the opposition to stop this deal by educating the public. Based on the level of support reported within Assemblyman Moore's district, those efforts were obviously unsuccessful.

 

Even taking what was said above into account, I personally think Assemblyman Moore's greatest failing in this situation came was in how he supported the deal.  A statement about "While I personally do not support this deal, I voted in favor because my constituents wanted me to do so" could have been a very good moment.  It would have provided an opportunity to educate the public about the negatives of the deal and hopefully prevent this type of situation from happening the next time. 

 

 

 

So I ask these questions:  Do you think that what John Moore did was driven by philosophy, or by politics?  Do you believe that John Moore wanted higher taxes?  As an elected representative, should he represent the people of his district, or ignore those people in favor of his own philosophy?  Is it more wise to go against the constituency, especially this close to election day, or is it more wise to fight another day when your "army" is more organized and can help you win the day?

 

Just something to think about.  I'm not pleased at the idea of yet another billionaire getting a taxpayer-funded stadium and I don't believe they create enough economic activity to offset the costs.  At least the team name is appropriate.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We have enough cosponsors for a ballot.  I will argue for it in the ballot.

It was an LPNV who last broached this action

with me - I believe it has the support of the aggrieved affiliate - and members- who's money we spent.

The second vote was expressly against something the LPNV was opposed to actively for years.

This is a betrayal of the LPNV.  And I certainly did not vote (and I argued zealously) to support a candidate - out of many worthy candidates - who would take such crony capitalist anti/libertarian power.

 [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I'm glad that the dilemma is understood. And you did bring up the other question I had, after further consideration; would we, as a body, be willing to censure an elected Libertarian President Johnson?  If this is the case, how bad would the transgression need to be before this body rebukes its own first elected President?

 

We really need to help give our candidates and elected officials, to the limited extent that they exist, be successful champions for liberty. And by "we", I mean every person who says they're a libertarian.  If we can't go out and help convince other people's minds, then we're failing as activists and supporters.  IMO, the root problem here is that 60% number.  Why do 60% of the people in Moore's district support this?

 

As I further discussed this with a few others this afternoon and evening, I had another thought.  If someone is elected to represent the people of his district and fails to do so, would that person be engaging in fraud against the constituents?  

 

Every candidate and elected official has negatives. I personally prefer to focus on a candidate's positives, rather than dwelling on their negatives. If the negatives exceed the positives, then I start looking for an alternate course of action.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-10-21 16:05, Demarest, David P. wrote:

Ken,

 

Thank you for your honest and thoughtful devil's advocate response regarding the proposed censure of John Moore. We can, however, view Assemblyman Moore's two egregious votes as an golden opportunity for LNC members to think outside the box to examine root causes and design short and long term solutions to the difficult dilemma faced by all Libertarian politicians. The dilemma is how to reconcile the dictates of one's Libertarian conscience with the realities of our current political environment that is rife with the cronyism necessary to get elected or reelected. The choice is between voting your conscience at the risk of not being reelected or violating your conscience to get reelected and live to fight another day in office.

 

I would submit that Moore's violation of his conscience to get reelected makes him part of the problem of spiraling cronyism that is inexorably destroying our way of life and accelerating our economy and society down the path of destruction that history demonstrates is the inevitable fate of all compulsory territorial governments. Most of us support Gary Johnson in spite of specific misgivings because it is obvious that Gary is so much better than the other choices and would undoubtedly make things far better than the other candidates. If Johnson is elected, however, we know that despite his honestly about his platform, many of his decisions will give us heartburn. Our short-term act of censuring Moore will send a clear and unambiguous message that statist actions by Libertarian officials to save political seats are unacceptable violations of conscience that will not be tolerated. The proposed censure of Moore will serve as an educational message for all present and future Libertarian officials including those who switch from other parties.

 

Long-term solutions require that we understand that cronyism does not fare well in the competitive context of the free-market. By contrast, cronyism is aggressively fostered in our current compulsory authoritarian majority rule system. We as Libertarians face an uphill battle if we choose to rely solely on a top-down legislative authoritarian approach to rescue us from the tsunami of cronyism that will swamp our ship of state if we do not reverse course promptly and with a sense of urgency.

 

The crushing curse of cronyism will not be reversed until we change the context of government to minimize instead of fostering cronyism. To get straight to the point, that change in context to discourage cronyism will not occur until we achieve competitive governance and competitive social services. I would further submit that we must supplement our top-down legislative strategy with a robust, bottom-up entrepreneurial peaceful freedom revolution fueled by peer-to-peer technology. Then and only then will we create the political climate necessary to elect Libertarian officials to all levels of government and establish the environment of competitive governance and social services that is an absolute prerequisite if we seriously intend to minimize cronyism and save our way of life for future generations.

 

Thoughts?

  

The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

 [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I find what if's and mining the subjunctives to be unhelpful personally.  I do not know what kind of transgression would warrant in a "what if" situation.  I would say yes, we should always be willing.  Our duty is not to any elected person but to the Party itself and the principles for which we stand.  This is a clear egregious violation which is somewhat like what some say about "pornography" - I know it when I see it.  I would ask if someone commits to be a Libertarian and acts completely against Libertarian principles and received money from the National Committee of said Party is that committing fraud against the body?   If the constituents feel defrauded (particularly since they elected a Republican, not a Libertarian) then it is up to them to deal with, not us.  Our standing and duty is to the LP and the members.

This isn't a minor issue.  This was major with a capital M.  And Nevada has made clear how they feel about it. 

The minute was have the "uncensurable" we are doomed.  We are the "Party of Principle" and we need to have the backbone to at some point say enough is enough, particularly when we spent $10K of our members' money.

 [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

And I would distinguish greatly a state candidate from our national candidate which was ratified and consented to by delegates at a national convention.  A state candidate is ratified by those delegates (in most states and in normal circumstances which do not involve a mid-term Party affiliation switch).  In such a case I give great deference to the affiliate that welcomed and championed. And once again, Nevada has made their absolute displeasure and sense of betrayal clear.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

 

I would submit that prior to censure, a conversation might be in order to get more information.  We don't even have all of the facts.  Here's what we know:

 

1. We have a candidate who is an elected official, was approved by an affiliate to run as an L, and to which the LNC gave money.

2. The candidate voted for 2 tax increases, the latter of which is to entice a franchise in a monopoly to come to his district.

3. The candidate claims 60% of his constituents supported the latter one.

4. The affiliate that nominated him is angry, has censured the candidate, and has asked National to censure as well.

 

 

 

Now, if the goal is to get Moore to switch to some other affiliation or to Independent, then certainly censure would be a good start. But I think it might be good to speak to the elected official first.

 

And the question about "what's the line for this body?" is extremely relevant. Has this body ever censured a candidate or elected Libertarian before? Is this a practice we want this body to make more regular?

 

Again, I'm not in favor of this cronyist garbage, and after Cincinnati signed a similarly-stupid deal with the Bengals, and tied revenue to an increased local sales tax, I just avoid buying things in Cincinnati when possible.  

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

The goal is for Libertarian candidates to not completely fundamentally betray basic principles in such a flagrant manner and sabotaging the efforts in a specific issue of the Party (the affiliate in this case).  The Motion itself says what we hope - for the candidate to take Libertarian stances in the future.  If he cannot, then switching to an affiliation that accurately reflects his principles is a choice he would have to make. That isn't our goal.  But it certainly isn't our goal to assist a betrayal of the affiliate and principles.  

I do not know if we have before.  And if there is censurable behaviour to a candidate that we have spent members' funds supporting, then yes. That is something we should consider doing.  Once again, we are the "party of principle" and if voting for a 750 million dollar crony capitalist subsidy isn't a censurable violation then we have truly lost our way.  Asking for a bright line rule is once again appropos to my pornography analogy.  There are a host of factors, and we know it when we see it.

The LPNV has spoken to the candidate.  He has given a public explanation.  This is public accountability.

The affiliate has not officially asked National to censure.  Some LPNV members have.  As have members elsewhere.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

One minor correction on the fourth point: The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Nevada unanimously censured the candidate, but has not asked National to censure as well. Individual party members may have asked, but the affiliate has taken no official position on whether or not the LNC should censure.

Tim Hagan

---

From: Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org>
To: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
Cc: William Redpath <wred...@yahoo.com>; "Demarest, David P." <David.D...@firstdata.com>; lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 8:48 PM

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

     {color:blue;text-decorati on:underline;}

 #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729
 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlin kFollowed

     {color:purple;text-decora tion:underline;}

 #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
 li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
 div.yiv9175739729msonormal0
     {margin-right:0in;margin- left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
 #yiv9175739729
 span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-706 6241125321024756gmail-m6375615 45514884297m-70931373373858551 35gmail-s1
     {}
 #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im
     {}
 #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20
     {color:windowtext;}
 #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault
     {}
  _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
 #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1
     {}
 #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your
 motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the
 $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's
 two votes were egregious.   Thoughts?  Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High
 and LIVE FREE!  The Invisible Hand of
 Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
 Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org
 secr...@lpne.orgdpdemarest@ centurylink.net
 david.d...@firstdata.com
 Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207  From: Lnc-business

 [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@ hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

 

The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Thank you on the clarification on who's asking for the censure.  I do think it would hold a bit more weight if the affiliate was officially asking.  This body's interference in affiliate matters has caused problems before. 

 

My greatest concern, after considering this for days, is the setting of precedent.  Who's to say that a future LNC might censure for something far less; for something legitimately disputed in the party or within the broader philosophy?  

 

I don't recall the LNC ever censuring a candidate.  In 2008, we had an issue with a candidate in KY.  We took care of it our way, and we didn't look to the LNC to do anything, though many others did ask the LNC to intervene.  In that scenario, we were able to block the candidate from the ballot line and that was that.

 

 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-10-22 00:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

The goal is for Libertarian candidates to not completely fundamentally betray basic principles in such a flagrant manner and sabotaging the efforts in a specific issue of the Party (the affiliate in this case).  The Motion itself says what we hope - for the candidate to take Libertarian stances in the future.  If he cannot, then switching to an affiliation that accurately reflects his principles is a choice he would have to make. That isn't our goal.  But it certainly isn't our goal to assist a betrayal of the affiliate and principles.  

 

I do not know if we have before.  And if there is censurable behaviour to a candidate that we have spent members' funds supporting, then yes. That is something we should consider doing.  Once again, we are the "party of principle" and if voting for a 750 million dollar crony capitalist subsidy isn't a censurable violation then we have truly lost our way.  Asking for a bright line rule is once again appropos to my pornography analogy.  There are a host of factors, and we know it when we see it.

 

The LPNV has spoken to the candidate.  He has given a public explanation.  This is public accountability.

 

The affiliate has not officially asked National to censure.  Some LPNV members have.  As have members elsewhere.

     {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}

 #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729
 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed

     {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}

 #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
 li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
 div.yiv9175739729msonormal0

     {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
 #yiv9175739729
 span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1
     {}

 #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im
     {}
 #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20
     {color:windowtext;}
 #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault
     {}
  _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
 #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1
     {}
 #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your
 motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the
 $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's
 two votes were egregious.   Thoughts?  Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High
 and LIVE FREE!  The Invisible Hand of
 Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
 Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org
 secr...@lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net
 david.d...@firstdata.com
 Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207  From: Lnc-business

 [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I doubt NV would not support the censure.  A Nevada board member asked me.

This is not blanket precedent.  We have money and it is egregious and we can't not do the right thing because we fear a tyrantatarian future LNC.  

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ken,

I would not have voted for this motion if the LNC had not contributed to Moore's campaign.  You are correct in that 

the LNC has no business interfering in the internal affairs of an affiliate for any reason, but the contribution made it

our business. 

 I was not at the meeting where the contribution was approved so I didn't hear the presentation in favor

of it.  Can a member who was present give a synopsis?

Thanks,

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

As I recall...

The decision to make this contribution came after some deliberation.  The discussion included comments on the merits and risks of such an investment.  Historical references, current situations, as well as future controversies were considered, and ultimately the vote was 12 to 3, in favor.

Discussion notes/factors considered:

-LNC funds are not expended on ballot access for Nevada, as they are in many other states...at amounts well above $10,000...and likely without winning candidates in those fields.
-John Moore is an incumbent, in a state WITHOUT straight-ticket voting.
-John Moore took a risk by joining us, and we can honor that risk with our support.
-John Moore has raised a substantial amount of money on his own, indicating commitment.
-An elected Libertarian is a necessity.
-If precedent is set by this decision, it should be based on the specific circumstances in this case.

Whitney

>>>>>>>>>  [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Great summary Whitney.

>>>>>>>>>  [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree that the precedent we set here is a matter of concern. The precedent I'm concerned about is the possibility of a Libertarian officeholder casting votes like the ones in question and not facing serious repercussions from the party.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I doubt NV would not support the censure.  A Nevada board member asked me.

This is not blanket precedent.  We have money and it is egregious and we can't not do the right thing because we fear a tyrantatarian future LNC.  

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I am trying to catch up on the debate here before I comment.  Was there an email on this thread which begins "One minor correction on the fourth point..."?  If so, can someone please forward it to me?  I didn't receive it, but it's showing up as an unread message preview.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I'll forward it to you... I sent the original, as well.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I can point to specific members in the party who would claim:

 

1A. Anyone who supports mandatory GMO labeling isn't libertarian.

1B. Anyone who rejects GMO mandatory labeling isn't libertarian.

 

2A. Anyone who supports mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian.

2B. Anyone who rejects mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian.

 

3A. Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal isn't libertarian.

3B. Anyone who supports making abortion illegal isn't libertarian.

 

Some of these members find these issues to be single-issue "disqualifiers" for being a libertarian.  And certainly others exist. 

 

Now, this case isn't as controversial; I'm not sure I know any libertarians who are pleased about a $750M project. But I fear that the LNC censuring a candidate is opening Pandora's Box. Think about 10 years from now, when some faction that's hot-and-bothered about one of these divisive issues listed above gets a majority on the LNC and decides to start censuring people under the precedent.

 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

A future tyrantatarian LNC will do what it wants anyways.  And we gave money to this campaign.  This is not at all a grey area and thus the analogies not even remotely relevant.

The precedent that is being set now is that the LNC will never give money to another candidate again if we do not retain this right if we want to talk precedents.

Living in a spirit of fear is the surest way to cripple and ideological movement.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I do think that larger the lesson here is that this body, in present and future forms, should do a better job of vetting where money is given. I think the Candidate Support Committee should be tasked with the creation of a qualifying checklist for vetting and recommending financial support for certain races. I think the idea of a candidate contract as a prerequisite for financial support from the LNC is reasonable (it even provides the candidates with some cover when the political pressure gets really high).  

 

I try not to dwell on the failures of the past, but on how to avoid them in the future.  Perform root cause analysis and implement procedures on how to avoid the problem in the future.  Having everyone get together and scold someone for a failure is not productive, nor is it conducive to a positive environment. 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

How is candidate endorsement and vetting for endorsement handled by the LNC? Does the LNC need a candidate endorsement committee?

 

The LP Radical Caucus has a strong candidate endorsement committee and process. All candidates requesting LPRC endorsement and campaign contributions must pass muster with the endorsement committee before their request is presented to the board where they must receive 100% approval. It is a stringent process and a responsibility that is taken very seriously.

 

Thoughts?

 

The Invisible Hand of Rational Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Ken Moellman

Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 8:37 PM
To: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
Cc: William Redpath <wred...@yahoo.com>; Demarest, David P. <David.D...@firstdata.com>; lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

 

 

I do think that larger the lesson here is that this body, in present and future forms, should do a better job of vetting where money is given. I think the Candidate Support Committee should be tasked with the creation of a qualifying checklist for vetting and recommending financial support for certain races. I think the idea of a candidate contract as a prerequisite for financial support from the LNC is reasonable (it even provides the candidates with some cover when the political pressure gets really high).  

 [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

There has been talk of creating a Candidate Support Committee.  I would suggest that this be a task given to that Committee in future elections. They will be working directly with candidates. They will have the best idea of which candidates qualify as both a serious candidate and a "good" Libertarian.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There has been such talk.  Primarily by me and Joshua.  And I will not vote for or support an opaque committee.  I want this committee, but this institutional fondness for opacity must be overcome as a condition for my support.  Of course, I am but one person, but I am laying my cards on the table.

 [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Forwarded on behalf of David Demarest.

I will have more to write on this topic later, but for now, let me note that I plan to have a motion to introduce in December.  I don't see any rush at this point to do it by email ballot.  When I have drafted it, I will distribute my proposal for comment.

I'll state ahead of time that my support for such a committee is not conditioned on any other policies being passed, and I do not fully agree with the comments about transparency for this particular committee either, at least, at the moment.  Once I've thought through the committee question more fully, I'll have a more fully developed position on how it should operate.  

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Demarest, David P. <David.D...@firstdata.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
To: "lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org" <IMCEAMAILTO-lnc-business...@firstdata.com>
Cc: "Cari L. Garcia (Garc...@C-IV.org)" <Garc...@c-iv.org>, "ken.mo...@lpky.org" <ken.mo...@lpky.org>, "Starchild (sfdr...@earthlink.net)" <sfdr...@earthlink.net>, "William Redpath (wred...@yahoo.com)" <wred...@yahoo.com>, "planning...@gmail.com" <planning...@gmail.com>, "ch...@lp.org" <ch...@lp.org>, "vice...@lp.org" <vice...@lp.org>, "secr...@lp.org" <secr...@lp.org>, "Demarest, David P." <David.D...@firstdata.com>, David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net>

A Candidate Support Committee might encompass the following functions, many of which are overlapping:

 

1.       Candidate recruitment

2.       Candidate vetting for endorsement

3.       Candidate endorsement

4.       Endorsed candidate training

5.       Endorsed candidate campaign financial contributions

6.       Endorsed candidate logistical support

7.       Endorsed candidate promotional support

8.       Endorsed candidate moral support

 

In the wake of Assemblyman Moore’s votes, the question from my perspective is NOT whether we need such a committee. My question is whether or not the significant responsibilities and workload suggest that two committees might be warranted. I recognize, however, that separation of the overlapping tasks might be more trouble than it is worth. It makes more sense to start with just one committee, see how that works out and expand to two committees if necessary.

 

I would cosponsor a motion to create an LNC Candidate Support Committee (CSC) with the proviso that the motion to create the committee address Caryn’s transparency concerns and her objections to creating an opaque committee. I would be glad to help those who are expert in the wording of motions develop such a motion.

 

Thoughts?

  

The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now

 

~David Pratt Demarest

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I highly suggest you have protections for transparency in place in this committee or it is a nightmare waiting to happen.

And though others *may* place less importance on member sentiment than I seem to - an opaque Committe will deeply disturb an active constituency and in my own opinion - violate hard won member rights.

It truly bothers me to say that the institutional reassertion of reluctance to transparency, institutional bias to not say anything strong or fiercely principled, and the institutional inertia in general is making me feel like the only sane course of action is to be Dr. No.  and I hate to see that because it serves nothing to move things forward - but does serve to keep things at least not arguably worse off.

This is a new age - one of Wikileaks and millennials who do not trust or like  hierarchal secrecy.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

As I said, I'm not ready to commit myself on the structure of the committee until I have a better grasp on what I would like it to do.  If I think its discussions will be primarily strategic, I will not want to require it do that in public.  I envision the committee carrying out strategic directions from the LNC; it's still an open question in my mind where the line between the two will sit.  One thought that occurred to me this morning, which I had not thought of before, is the fact that the LNC will have to adopt its strategic directions to the committee in open session since our rules prohibit us from making decisions in executive session.  I haven't figured out how to handle that yet.

As I indicated before, what matters to me most on transparency is making sure that members have the ability to judge the LNC and its members.  Committee appointees are not subject to a vote of the general membership and so I see less value there.  This is, on the other hand, why it is important to me that (non-bylaws-mandated) committees, as much as possible, execute plans constructed by the LNC - so that big-picture items, high-level strategy, etc., are made by those who can be judged and reelected or not.  I believe in empowered committees, but within the bounds, primarily, of tactics, with strategic direction coming from the LNC.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

No problem Joshua - you know I favour empowered committees but if you want my support you know where I stand.  

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

This is the e-mail I received from John Moore, but with the attachments removed. The documents attached started with a statement that he considers it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian National Committee as well as all contents of his statement.

Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Moore <john....@lpnevada.org>
To: Tim Hagan <timhag...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Hi Tim,

Please pass the attached documents to the LNC. Please do not disseminate the contents with anyone outside of the LNC.

Thanks,

John Moore

Nevada Assembly

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Tim Hagan <timhag...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John,

As you've probably already heard, many Libertarians are disappointed and perplexed about your votes during the special session. Caryn Ann Harlos is moving the motion below in the Libertarian National Committee concerning your votes in support of tax increases. Let me know if you have anything you wish me to pass on to the LNC. She and her co-sponsors are asking for an e-mail ballot, so the debate and votes will be via e-mail during the next ten days.

Thanks,

Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message -----

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@ hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

 

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility.  As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern:

 

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

 

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

 

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

 

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

______________________________ _________________

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Our members are holding us accountable for this decision and the reasons for public votes should be public.  I will not agree to such secrecy.  Our politicians must be publicly accountable.

This is not how Libertarian government works.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thanks Tim, that answers my question (i.e. he didn't say why he wants secrecy). Since votes on the motion are due Monday but that being Halloween I might forget if I wait until the last day, I'll probably vote tomorrow evening. If you (or John) have sent me the attached documents by then, I'll read them and take what he has to say into consideration when voting.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

You're welcome John, and good to hear from you. Not infrequently when someone asks to tell me something in confidence, I will let them know it's better that they not tell me, because I don't want to be bound to keeping something secret if it turns out to be something that I think ought to be made public, not to mention it means more mental work for me to try to keep track of what I'm not supposed to tell others! 

When it comes to representative organizations (of which the Libertarian Party is one), I believe in institutional transparency. I think secrecy is way overused, to the detriment of our party. Circumstances in which some members of a group have access to information that others do not tends to create a two-tiered or multi-tiered group in which insiders have more power, and that is anathema to bottom-up governance. One of the faults of party leadership, in my view, is that we have often been too insular and too much of the opinion that we can't trust ordinary LP members with information. 

If you feel it is productive to share your views about the Nevada LP leadership with members of the LNC, my opinion is that other party members also ought to have the benefit of hearing those views, and that if you feel they cannot productively be shared with members of the public, then it is probably not productive to share them with the LNC either and I would suggest you redact them from your statement before you send it to us. Please note that I'm not arguing either for redaction or for sharing with the world in this case – not knowing what you may have to say, there's no way for me to know whether I would consider it in the best interests of the party and movement that you keep this information to yourself, or make it known to a wider audience.

But if we were to agree to accept your statement on the condition of keeping it secret, we would be putting ourselves in the position of receiving negative input about other Libertarian Party members without those members knowing what was being said about them or having any opportunity to respond to the points being made, and that does not seem fair or desirable. If Nevada LP officials had come to us while we were debating whether to donate to your campaign, and given us information critical of you but asked that we keep it secret, my response would have been similar.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:30 AM, John Moore wrote:

Thank you starchild for your response to my statement.  The reason I have it marked as "confidential" is for the statements that I made regarding the Nevada Libertarian party leadership. I respect your opinion and input on this issue.

Thanks,
John Moore
Nevada State Assembly

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

John, it's true that secret meetings (sometimes described using the euphemism "executive session") have been not uncommonly used by the Libertarian National Committee. This is one of the practices I had in mind when I noted that "we have often been too insular and too much of the opinion that we can't trust ordinary LP members with information." But even under LNC policies which I regard as flawed in allowing too much secrecy, the use of secret meetings is authorized only under narrow circumstances which I do not believe apply in this situation.

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                  (415) 625-FREE

                                    @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 3:46 PM, John Moore wrote:

Hi Starchild,

The LNC as well as every other political organization use the "Executive session" to discuss issues in confidence behind closed doors so I consider my statement to the LNC in that manner.

Thanks,
John John Moore
Nevada State Assembly

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

John,

If you do not choose to send a redacted statement, then I feel you leave me little choice but to rely on your original statement and make that public, because I would like to be informed at least to your immediate rationale for the votes in question, and I do not agree that this rationale should be hidden from our members. Although Tim may have told you (or he may not have, I am not sure) that he would keep the statement secret in accord with your wishes, I have made no such promise.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 4:08 PM, John Moore wrote:

Hi Tim,

Please pass on to members of the LNC,

I have no intention of sending a  redacted statement. I have been present on two different occasions when the LNC used the "Executive session" to discuss issues in confidence and behind closed doors. This is no different in my view. If members choose not to read my statement that is their choice however they would then be casting a vote without being educated or having all of the facts.

It appears that the LNC has and is using a "Double Standard"

Thanks,
John Moore
Nevada State Assembly

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Executive session is very narrow, and this would not apply.  If committee members wished a decision to made based upon their opinions of the leadership of an affiliate, they would either say it in full view of members (and constituency) or hold their peace.  I have not seen your statement and do not wish to, as I cannot agree to secrecy.

However, I do not believe it proper for secret communications to be used in our public decisions, and I would ask that committee members not do so.  These votes and the fact that we gave money makes us accountable.  I am not accountable in secret.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you, John. Although I don't expect it to change my stance on censure, I will give it a read and due consideration before voting. I'm glad you decided to share a redacted version, if the comments about the Nevada LP in the original were things that were better left unsaid in such a statement.

I've included your attachment in this message so you don't have to send it to other LNC members separately, and as plain text at the bottom of the email for those who would rather read it in that form than open a separate document.